STATE OF HARYANA Vs. JAGTAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal on behalf of the State is directed against the judgment of the Judicial Magistrate, Dabwali, dated October 31, 1977, whereby the accused-respondent was acquitted for the offence under Section 15 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, (hereinafter called the Act ). According to the prosecution case, Shri Ram Raji Jindal, Food Inspector, accompanied by Dr. R. S. Agnihotri, went to the shop of the accused-respondent on August 21, 1975, at about 8. 35 A. M. and purchased 660 millilitres milk for Rs. 1. 45 out of ten litres of milk lying for sale. This milk was divided into three equal parts and put into three separate bottles. After adding 18 drops of formalin, the bottles were sealed in accordance with rules. One bottle was handed over to the accused, the other was deposited with the Chief Medical Officer, which was sent to the Public Analyst, Haryana, at Chandigarh, and the third bottle remained with the Chief Medical Officer. One copy of the memo along with specimen impression of the seal used in the sample was also sent to the Public Analyst. According to the report of the Public Analyst, the sample was found to be adulterated, the milk fat being 57 per cent deficient and milk solids not fat was 45 per cent deficient as against the minimum standard prescribed. In view of the same, a complaint was filed against the accused by the Food Inspector. In evidence, the prosecution examined Food Inspector Ram Ranjandal, as P. W. 1 and Dr. R. S. Agnihotri, as P. W. 2. The report of the Public Analyst and other documents relating to the purchase of the milk etc. were also produced in evidence. The accused, in his statement under Section 313, Cr. P. C, denied all the allegations and alleged false implication. In defence, one witness, Wisakha Singh, was examined as D. W. 1.

(2.) THE trial Court held that one independent witness Dr. R. S. Agnihotri had been joined as required under Section 10 (7) of the Act. and that there was no material discrepancy between the statement of this witness and that of the 'food Inspector. It was, however, held 'that Rules 17 and 18 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules (hereinafter called the Rules), were mandatory which had not been complied with inasmuch as it was not proved as to by which means the container of the sample was sent by the office of the Chief Medical Officer and that the specimen impression of the seal as well as the memorandum were not proved to have been sent separately. The contention of the Food Inspector that the report of the Public Analyst disclosing that the memo, and the impression of the seal had been received separately was sufficient compliance of the Rules was repelled. On account of non-compliance of these two mandatory rules, the accused-respondent was acquitted.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the State 'has challenged the acquittal and has contended that Rules 17 and 18 were not mandatory in character and their noncompliance cannot give rise to the presumption invariably that the accused 'had been prejudiced and that the report of the Public Analyst was sufficient to show that the duty cast on the prosecution to prove the compliance of the Rules had been discharged.