LAWS(HPH)-1993-12-11

STATE OF H.P. Vs. SURESH KUMAR

Decided On December 24, 1993
STATE OF H.P. Appellant
V/S
SURESH KUMAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Accused Suresh Kumar was tried but acquitted for the commission of the offence under section 16 (1) (II) read with section 7 (1) and (5) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (shortly hereinafter referred to as the Act) vide the impugned judgment passed on March 30, 1993, in Criminal Case No. 15 -III of 1991.

(2.) Shortly stated, the facts are that on November 13, 1990, Shri S.C Sharma, Food Inspector, after disclosing his identity to the accused purchased a sample of cow milk (750 mis) in consideration of payment of Rs. 3.75 with an intention to get it anaysed. Notice to this effect (Ex. PW I/A) was served upon the accused. After observing the codal formalities with respect to the taking of sample, dividing it into three bottles by affixing the sales on each one of them in accordance with Rule 17 of the Rules framed under the Act, sent one of the samples to the Public Analyst, Punjab at Chandigarh for analysis One of the seal impression was also sent alongwith it. The two other parts of the sample were handed over by the complainant to the Local Health Authority (hereinafter shortly as LHA) for its safe custody. Report of the Public Analyst Ex. PW 1/J found the sample of milk to be an adulterated one. Accordingly, PW 1 filed a complaint against the accused for the commission of the aforesaid offences and sent the intimation of filing thereof to the LHA.

(3.) On prima facie case being made out, notice of accusation was given to the accused with respect to the commission of the aforesaid offences, who abjured the guilt and claimed false implication. The trial Court, on appraisal of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, recorded the order of acquittal on two grounds : (i) that sanction Ex. PW 1/N was a mechanical sanction without application of mind of the sanctioning authority ; and (ii) that Rule 7 (3) of the Rules framed being mandatory had been violated which vitiated the trial. The only question before this Court is whether the impugned judgment is legally sustainable ?