STATE OF H.P. Vs. YUSUF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kullu in Criminal Appeal No. 2/97 on 29th May, 1997. By means of impugned judgment while allowing the appeal of the Respondent Yusuf, Additional Sessions Judge has set aside the judgment passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kullu on 6th January, 1997 in Criminal Case No. 304 -1/93. Consequently, the Appellant has been acquitted of the offence under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'.

(2.) BRIEF facts giving rise to this case are that P.L. Sharma, Food Inspector (PW -1) on 22nd June, 1993 at about 11 a.m. came across the Respondent at Gompa Road, Manali. Respondent was having one can full of milk weighing 40 litres. PW -1 expressed his intention to draw sample from the can in question. He issued notice in this behalf vide Ex. PW1/ A. He claims to have stirred the milk with a jug and then took out 750 grams of milk on payment of Rs. 4.50 vide receipt Ex. PW1/B. This milk was distributed in three equal parts and was put in three neat, clean and dry bottles. Thereafter, 20 drops of formalin were added to each of the three bottles. Then all the three bottles were stoppered and properly sealed as required under law. Paper seal issued by Local Health Authority was pasted on each of the three bottles as required under the provision of the Act as well as the rules framed thereunder. Signatures of the Respondent were also obtained on the samples. This entire process was witnessed vide Panchnama Ex. PW1/C. One sample alongwith Form No. VII and seal impression was forwarded to Public Analyst at Kandaghat for analysis whereas two other samples were deposited with the Local Health Authority, Kullu.

(3.) AFTER receipt of the report of the Public Analyst, prosecution was launched with prior sanction of the competent authority under Section 20 vide Annexure PI /J. Simultaneously, Local Health Authority intimated the Respondent under Section 13(2) of the Act so as to enable him to have recourse to law by getting another sample sent to the Central Food Laboratory. Copy of the notice has been proved on record as PW 2A and postal receipt of its despatch as Ex. PW2/B.