STATE Vs. MOHAMMED BUX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are two appeals, one filed by the State, and the other by the Municipal Council, Udaipur, against a judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Udaipur, by which he set aside the conviction of the accused of an offence under sec. 16 (l) (a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, (Act No. XXXVII of 1954, hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1954), and acquitted him.

(2.) THE facts leading up to these appeals are simple. THE accused was a milk-vendor in the city of Udaipur and appears to have been carrying on this business for a considerable time. On the 22nd September, 1960, he was suspected of selling adulterated milk. THE Food Inspector of the Municipal Council, Udaipur, therefore took samples of the milk sold by him and sent them to the Public Analyst, Rajasthan, Jaipur, for analysis. THE latter was of the opinion that the samples were of adulterated milk and that they did not conform to the prescribed standard of purity. THEreupon, the Commissioner, Municipal Council, Udaipur, accorded its sanction to the prosecution of the accused and the Food Inspector instituted a complaint, out of which these appeals arise, before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Udaipur. THE learned Magistrate held the accused guilty of selling adulterated milk and convicted him under sec. 16 (l) (a) of the Act of 1954, and sentenced him to six months' simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default to a further simple imprisonment for three months. Against this decision, the accused went up in appeal to the Additional Sessions Judge, Udaipur. It was urged before the learned Judge that there was no proper sanction for the prosecution of the accused under sec. 20 (1) of the Act of 1954, and, therefore, the conviction of the accused could not be sustained in law. This contention prevailed with the learned Judge below with the result that the accused was acquitted.