STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. ASHOK GOYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record as well. This appeal is directed by the State against the judgment passed by Shri P. C. Sharma, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solan in Case No. 22/3 of 1987 dated 29-3-1990. By this judgment respondents have been acquitted in a complaint filed by the State under Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the said Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').

(2.) Brief facts giving rise to this case are that on 29-1-1987, Food Inspector H. L. Pathak (PW 1) went to the shop of the respondents and after disclosing his identity showed his intention to take sample of toned milk for analysis by the Public Analyst in accordance with the provisions of the Act. At the relevant point of time respondents were in possession of 2.50 Kg. of toned milk in a Dibba. Out of the said quantity of milk, Food Inspector purchased 660 ML of toned milk on payment of Rs. 2.50 against receipt. Facts as revealed further are that before purchase the Food Inspector had stirred the milk in the Dibba thoroughly with 100 grams measure. Thereafter, the purchased milk was put into three neat and dry bottles in equal parts and 18 drops of formaline were added into each of the bottles. Each of the bottle was then stoppered and properly labelled as well as sealed in accordance with procedure prescribed under the Act. Signatures of the respondent No. 1 were obtained on each of the three bottles. The entire process of taking sample etc. was completed in the presence of Dr. Handa, Rajinder Kumar and Sant Ram peon. Thereafter, one part of the sample was sent to Public Analyst along with necessary documents and two parts were deposited with the Local Health Authority, Solan. On analysis, Public Analyst Punjab, Chandigarh vide his opinion Ex. PF opined that the contents of the sample are deficient in milk fat by 27 per cent and in milk solid not fat by 32 per cent of the minimum prescribed standard. After the receipt of the report of the Public Analyst, intimation was sent to the respondent No. 2 regarding launching of prosecution and a copy of this report of Public Analyst was also attached with the said intimation, copy of which is placed on the file as Ex. PW-2/C and this intimation was despatched vide Ex. PW-2/D.

(3.) On receipt of the intimation, the respondents approached the trial Court for sending the sample to Central Food Laboratory vide application dated 24-3-1987. This prayer of the respondent was allowed and sample was sent to the Central Food Laboratory, Mysore, who also opined vide its report Ex. PH that the sample does not conform to the standards laid down for toned milk under the provisions of the Act and the rules framed thereunder.