STATE OF H P Vs. OM PARKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment passed by the Sub Division Judicial Magistrate, Kangra dated 30.11.1992.

(2.) THE respondent was tried for having committed offence under Section 16(1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter shortly referred to as 'the Act'), on the allegations that on 18.8.1988, PW.1 S.C. Sharma was present at Bus stand, Kangra in connection with checking. ?At such time, the respondent unloaded six cans of milk from the bus, which was meant for sale to the general public of Kangra town. Sample of milk was taken by the Food Inspector after disclosing his identity and intention to purchase milk in order to send the same for analysis. After observing codal formalities, he purchased 750 mls. of cow's milk from one of the cans for getting it analysed. The milk was put in three neat dry and clean bottles, which were wrapped, labelled and sealed as per the requirements of the Act. One of the samples was sent to the Public Analyst, Chandigarh. Remaining two parts of the sample were deposited with the Local Health Authority, Kangra. As per the report of the analyst Ex. PH, the sample was found to be deficient in milk fat by 29% and in milk solid not fat by 32 percent of the minimum prescribed standard.

(3.) ON this basis, the prosecution was launched by the Food Inspector against the respondent after the sanction having been obtained from the Local Health Authority. Intimation regarding initiation of proceedings was sent to the respondent as envisaged under Section 13(2) of the Act, on receipt whereof, respondent chose to avail the right, available to him to get one of the two samples which were lying with the Local Health Authority, analysed from the Central Food Laboratory. Thus, on an application dated 5.12.1988 made by the respondent, one out of the two samples was ordered to be sent to the Central Food Laboratory for analysis by the trial Court. It was reported back by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory, Mysore that the parcel was damaged and presumably the sample bottle is broken as evident by the crackling of glass pieces, therefore, the parcel had been refused and the same was returned to the court by the postal authorities. It was further requested that the 3rd sample be sent to enable the Director, Central Food Laboratory, Mysore to submit its verdict on completion of analysis. Letter received from the Central Food Laboratory in this behalf is at page 105 of the trial Court file. After receipt of this letter, second sample, which was lying with the Local Health Authority was sent by the Court below to the Central Food Laboratory for analysis and report. Vide Ex. PP, it was reported that the contents of sample bottle had completely curdled with fat separation discolored with mould growth and putrefied emitting foul smell, thereby rendering the sample unfit to carry out tests/analysis for the standards laid down for cow's milk under the provisions of PFA Act 1954 and rules thereof.