STATE OF H P Vs. SIRI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State of Hlmachal Pradesh has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 21-12-1998 of the learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, whereby judgment dated 26-5-1993 of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur convicting and sentencing respondent-Siri Ram, hereinafter called accused of an offence, under S. 16(l)(a)(i), read with S. 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, has been set aside and the said accused has been acquitted.

(2.) Facts relevant for the disposal of the appeal may be summed up thus. On 27-9-1990, Food Inspector, P.W. 1 Sh. I. D. Verma, took a sample of milk from the accused. The sample was divided into three parts and each part was poured into a separate dry and clean bottle and the bottles were labelled and sealed, as per requirement of law. One part of the sample was sent to the Public Analyst along with Form No. 7. The Public Analyst reported that the milk did not conform to the minimum prescribed standards and as such it was adulterated. On the receipt of the report, sanction for prosecuting the accused was applied for by the Food Inspector. The Chief Medical Officer granted the sanction. Thereafter complaint was filed against the accused. The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, who tried the accused for the offence of selling adulterated milk, found him guilty and accordingly convicted him for the offence under S. 16(l)(a)(i) read with S. 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of three months.

(3.) Accused filed an appeal in the Sessions Court. The learned Sessions Judge through the impugned judgment, accepted the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence of the accused and acquitted him, holding that there was non-compliance of S. 10(7) of the Act, inasmuch as, no independent witness had been associated, the sanction to prosecute the accused had been accorded without application of mind and the sample had not been made homogeneous.