MUNICIPAL COUNCIL JAIPUR Vs. GANGA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has arisen out of the judgement of the learned Municipal Magistrate, Jaipur City (West) dated 30.8.1971. The facts are that on 22.9.67, at 5 p.m., Prem Chand, Food Inspector, Municipal Council, Jaipur checked the accused Mst. Ganga near Railway Loco Colony Institute when she was having milk in a 'Chari' containing about 5 seer of milk. The 'Chari' did not indicate the name of the animal of which the milk was. The accused was selling milk without a licence. The Food Inspector purchased a sample from her and sent one of the sample bottle for chemical analysis. The public Analyst reported that the sample of milk was adulterated by reason of its containing about 52% added water and extraction of about 4% original fat. The plea taken up by the accused Ganga was that she did not sell any milk to the Food Inspector. As a matter of fact, the Manager of Laxmi Motor Co., Shri Ramanand had kept his buffalo with her and she used to carry the milk of that buffalo to the manager's house. The Food Inspector checked her, the Manager had asked her to purchase some more milk from the market and bring to his place because those were the days of 'Sradha'. Ramanand had also written a letter to the Commissioner, Municipal Council on Dec. 15, 1967 to the effect that he had asked Mahadeo husband of Ganga to bring milk from the market for Sradha purposes. Ganga did not understand what the Food Inspector was doing and could not explain that the milk was not for sale but was purchased by her for Ramanand. Gopal Lal C. W. 1 confirmed that he was an employee of the Municipal Council and that such a letter was received by the Municipal Commissioner.

(2.) The learned Magistrate found that the two witnesses Laxman Ram P.W. 3 and Abdul Gani P.W. 4 turned hostile to the prosecution, and further that even if the proceedings of the Food Inspector were believable, yet it was not proved that Mst Ganga was not carrying milk for sale and therefore' she did not contravene section 7 of the Act. He acquitted her of the offence under Sec. 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. Hence this appeal by the Municipal Council, Jaipur.

(3.) I agree with the learned Magistrate that there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of Prem Chand, Food Inspector that he purchased the sample from Mst. Ganga. divided it into three parts put it into the bottles and sealed the same. As regards the question whether the milk was meant for sale or not it is sufficient to say that she sold the milk to the Food Inspector and that is a sale under the law to attract the provision of the aforesaid Act. The Food Inspector had deposed that he purchased the milk from her by paying 0.75 paise for 24 ounces. Even Ramanand's letter and evidence cannot come to her rescue. The letter which Ramanand wrote is dated Dec. 15, 1967, while the offence took place on Sept. 22, 1967. This is a defence which is clearly an afterthought. This milk was according to this plea also was not of the buffalo of Ramanand. It had some more milk also. How much milk Mst Ganga purchased from the market for the manager Ramanand has no where been stated. If it were purchased for Ramanand than even as late as Dec., 1967. h was possible for her or Ramanand to say how much milk was purchased by her for the needs of Ramanand. In these circumstances, I cannot uphold the finding of the learned Magistrate that the milk was not for sale and was really purchased for Ramanand. The finding of the learned Magistrate therefore, deserves to be reversed. Mst. Ganga was guilty of selling adulterated milk without licence. She has contravened rule 30 of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 and Sec. 7 of the Act.