STATE Vs. RATTAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the State is directed against an order of acquittal recorded by Shri Guman Singh the then learned M. I. C., Sirmur District, in a case under Section 16 read with Section 7 (i) (a) (sic) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, hereinafter referred to as the Act.

(2.) Respondent No. I is a Halwai at Nahant and inter alia sells milk. Respondent No. 2 is employed by him as his servant for the sale of the articles. On 29th of May, 1962 at about 11.30 A.M. respondent No. 2 had on behalf of respondent No. 1 taken delivery of a can containing milk at the Bus Stand. The aforesaid can of milk had been transported in a bus and it appears from the statement made by Musadi Lal DW. 1 that it had been despatched by him. As soon as respondent No. 1 took delivery of the aforesaid can of milk the Food Inspector attached to the municipality of Nahan intercepted him and purchased 24 ounces of milk to serve as a sample. The aforesaid milk was put in three phials all of which were sealed and one of them was sent to the Public analyst for examination and as a result of analysis it was found to be deficient in solids other than fat. The respondents were accordingly prosecuted for contravention of the provisions of the Act as indicated above. They pleaded to be not guilty to the charges framed against them. In the main the defence was that the milk in question was despatched by Musadi Lal D.W. 1, that it was cows' milk and had yet to be tested when the sample was taken by the Food Inspector and was returned to the supplier on the same day that it was received. In other words the plea was that the milk was not the property of respondent No. 1 when a portion of it was purchased by the Food Inspector to serve as a sample.

(3.) On behalf of the prosecution Manohar Singh P.W. 2, Relu Ram P.W. 3 and the Food Inspector were examined as witnesses, and as has already been observed one Musadi Lal was examined on behalf of defence. The conclusions reached by the learned Magistrate were (i) that the milk in question was derived from cow and was not sold as buffalo milk, (ii) that the sample was not below the standard prescribed for milk derived from cow, (iii) that respondent No. 2 had stored the milk on behalf of respondent No. 1, but he was not liable for the offence as he was obliged to part with the milk when a sample of it was demanded by the Food Inspector and strictly speaking there was no sale by respondent No. 2, and (iv) that adequate quantity of preservative was not added to the sample by the Food Inspector and the deficiency in the non-fat solids might have been due to that. He accordingly acquitted the respondents. The correctness of those findings has been challenged on behalf of the State.