STATE OF HARYANA Vs. BAHADUR CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the State of Haryana from the acquittal of the accused-respondent by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jind, for the offence punishable under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (for short, the Act).

(2.) On Feb.22, 1980, the respondent sold to Ram Singh, Government Food Inspector, Jind PW. 1, 660 mls. of cow's milk. After complying with the formalities prescribed by law and adding the necessary preservative, the sample was sent to the Public Analyst for examination. The Public Analyst vide his report Ex. PD found the sample to be adulterated as milk fats were 5.7% against 4% while the milk solids not - fat were 8% against 8.5% and thus the milk solids not-fat were 6% deficient of the minimum prescribed standard. The Food Inspector besides himself coming into the witness box as P.W. 1 examined Dr. R.S. Garg P. W. 2 and also proved the necessary documentary evidence with regard to the purchase of sample from the respondent. In his statement under S.313, Cr. P.C., the respondent denied the prosecution allegations and pleaded false complicity in the case but led no evidence in defence. Whilst accepting the prosecution case and the report Ex. PD as regards the analysis of the milk, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jind, however, relying on the decisions in Ujagar Singh v. State of Punjab, (1980) 1 FAC 432; Hans Raj v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 FAC 396; Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Birinder Nath Chatterjee, 1974 FAC 223 (Delhi); Sultan Shah v. State of U.P., 1974 FAC 424; Ram Autar v. State, (1980) 2 FAC 249 (All) ; Madan Lal v. State, (1980) 2 FAC 300; Darshan Singh v. State, (1981) 1 FAC 98 and Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. S. Ramanathan, (1981) 1 FAC 147 along with the observations made by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Malwa Co-operative Milk Union Ltd. v. Bihari Lal, (Criminal Appeals Nos. 235 and 236 of 1964 decided on Aug. 14, 1967) reported in 1973 FAC 375, acquitted the respondent for the following reasons : -

(3.) It is manifest from the above that the aforesaid acquittal is based on the ground that the sample conformed to the prescribed standard of the fat contents, but it was found to be deficient in non-fatty solid contents. This view of the trial Court no doubt finds support from the two single Bench decisions of this Court in Ujagar Singh's case (supra) (1980) 1 FAC 432 and Hans Raj's case (supra) (1980) 2 FAC 396 but this reasoning was squarely deprecated in a Full Bench decision of this Court in State of Punjab v. Teja Singh, (1976) 78 Pun LR 433. Therein the specific legal issues which fall for consideration were formulated in the following terms : -