MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE AMRITSAR Vs. LACHHMAN DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the Municipal Committee, Amritsar, against the order dated 8th March, 1966 passed by Shri Sher Singh, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Amritsar, acquitting the respondent of the charge under Sec. 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, after obtaining leave under Sec. 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) The facts of the case briefly are that on 14th October, 1965 at about 3.45 P.M., Shri Deri Das Tak, Food Inspector, Municipal Committee, Amritsar, went to the shop of Lachhman Dass, respondent, and found 10 litres of cow milk in his possession which was meant for sale. After giving prescribed notice in form VI (Exhibit PA) under rule 12 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (hereinafter called the Rules), the Food Inspector in the presence of Ram Lal and Madan Lal purchased from the a ceased 660 milliter of milk for analysis for 0.40 paise vide receipt (Exhibit PB) signed and thumb, marked by the accused and attested by the witnesses. He divided the milk in three equal parts and put each part in a separate dry and clean bottle. Sixteen drops of formalin were added is each bottle which was duly packed and sealed. He gave one sealed sample bottle to the accused vide receipt (Exhibit PC) and seat one sample bottle to the Public Analyst with Meme. (Exibit PD) along with specimen of seal (Exhibit PE) on the next day. The Public Analyst sent his report (Exhibit PF), according to which, the sample of milk sent to him (Public Analyst) was found to be adulterated as the milk solids not fat were 7.4 per cent instead of S.S per cent. After receiving the report of the Public Analyst, the Food Inspector drew up the complaint (Exhibit PG) which is dated 8th November, 1965 but was filed in the Court of the Magistrate on 30th November, 1965. The accused was summoned for 9th December, 1965, but he actually appeared on 15th December, 1965. The evidence in the case was recorded on 4th January, 1966, and before doing so, the following charge was framed against the respondent:

(3.) In his statement under Sec. 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the respondent admitted that Devi Das, Food Inspector, came to his shop on 14th October, 1966, at 3 45 P.M. but denied that he had 10 litres of milk in a tin. He stated that he had only one kilo of cow milk in patila which he had got for use in tea. He denied that he sold the milk to the Food Inspector or he received the price therefor and that his thumb impressions were obtained on three or four documents under threats. He admitted the addition of sixteen drops of formalin in each bottle but denied that any sample bottle was given to him. He denied all knowledge of the report of the Public Analyst.