GOVERNMENT FOOD INSPECTOR Vs. HANUMAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated October 9, 1989, passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Narnaul, - vide which Hanuman Singh accused was acquitted of the charge under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter called 'the Act').

(2.) ON November 13, 1987, Shri Megh Nath, Food Inspector accompanied by Dr. S. P. Singh, was present at Bus Stand of village Buchawas in connection with taking the sample of the articles of food; Food Inspector accompanied by the doctor went to the liquor vend situated at Bus Stand Buchawas belonging to M/s. Bahadur Singh and Company. Hanuman Singh was sitting on the vend as salesman. The Food Inspector disclosed his identity and inspected the spot for the purpose of taking the sample of the liquor. He found that six nips of country liquor mark Jagadhri No. 1 were lying in the vend for public sale. Mohinder Singh a public person was also present at that time. The Food Inspector served a notice Ex. PA on the accused requiring him to give the sample of liquor. Then the Food Inspector purchased three nips of liquor mark Jagadhri No. 1 against payment of Rs. 27, - vide receipt Ex. PB. Notice Ex. PA and receipt Ex. PB were thumb-marked and signed by Hanuman Singh and attested by Dr. S. P. Singh and Mohinder Singh. Each nip of liquor so purchased was in sealed condition. Each nip was labelled and was again sealed with one seal of the doctor at its neck. Then each nip was wrapped in a strong thick paper, both the ends of which were folded in and were pasted with gum. A paper slip bearing the serial number, code number and signatures of Local Health Authority was pasted from top to bottom on the wrapper of each bottle. Then each bottle was twined with a thread horizontally and vertically and was again sealed with one seal of the doctor and four seals of the Food Inspector himself. Thumb-impressions of the accused on each bottle were obtained in such a manner so that half of the thumb-impression came on the wrapper and the remaining half came on the paper slip. Spot memo Ex. PD was prepared. It was attested by the witnesses and thumb-marked and signed by the accused. Five copies of memorandum in Form VII were prepared at the spot. One copy alongwith one part of the sample is a sealed packet were sent to the Public Analyst, Haryana, Chandigarh, for analysis. One copy of Memorandum in Form No. VII was also sent separately to the Public Analyst, Haryana, through registered post. Remaining two parts alongwith two copies of memorandum in Form No. VII were deposited with the Local Health Authority, Narnaul, on 14th November, 1987. The Public Analyst, Haryana, Chandigarh, analysed the sample and, - vide his report Exhibit PH opined that the sample gave alcoholic strength 51.99 degree proof against the label declaration of 55 degree proof. The Public Analyst sent four copies of his report to the Local Health Authority, Narnaul. The Local Health Authority, Narnaul, had sent two copies of the report to the Food Inspector requiring him to submit the complaint against the accused. The Food Inspector, Mahendergarh, submitted the complaint in the Court and informed the Local Health Authority, who sent one copy of the report Exhibit PH to the accused alongwith covering letter Exhibit PC through registered post. Exhibit PC/2 is the postal receipt and Exhibit PC/1 is the registered A.D. The registered letter Exhibit PC came back undelivered with the report that there was no salesman on the vend. Thereafter, the accused put in appearance in the Court and applied for sending the second part of the sample to the Director, Central Food Laboratory, Mysore, who, - vide his report Exhibit PK, opined that the sample was misbranded, and the alcohol contents expressed as degree proof falls below the declared value of 55 degree proof OBS 0.3 degree. The substance of the accusation was stated to the accused by means of an order dated October 12, 1988. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

(3.) THE accused was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He again pleaded innocence.