STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. BABU RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgement dated 1-3 1982 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hamirpur by which he acquitted the respondent of the charges under section 16(1) (a) read with section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter the Act).

(2.) BRIEFLY , the prosecution version is that the respondent was carrying about 10 Kgs. of milk for sale. Tarlok Singh, Food Inspector, after disclosing his identity served a notice upon him and indicated an intention to take the sample of milk for analysis. 660ML of milk was purchased from the respondent on payment of Rs. 1.32. It was then divided and filled in three neat, clean and dried bottles in equal quantity. Formalin was added to each part of the sample as preservative. These bottles were packed after observing the various formalities and one of the bottles was sent to the public analyst, and the remaining two bottles were deposited with the local health authorities. According to the report of the public analysist the milk was found to be adulterated as it was deficit in the milk solids Not Fat by 21% of the minimum prescribed standard.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellant contends that the learned Magistrate has erred in acquitting the respondent. He contends that it is not necessary to prove that the milk was being carried for sale or that the respondent was dealing in the sale of milk. The mere fact that the adulterated milk was sold to the Food Inspector by the respondent is sufficient to convict the respondent under Section 16(1) of the Act.