STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. FAKIR MOHAMMAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 2.2.1987 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barmer (for short 'the trial court') in Criminal Case No.315/1987, whereby the trial court did not find guilt of accused respondent and acquitted him for the offence under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short 'the Act'). Aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal, the State has preferred this appeal.

(2.) Briefly stated facts to the extent they are relevant and necessary for decision of this appeal are that PW.4 P.C.Harsh. Food Inspector, Barmer, who was appointed vide order Ex.P/3, on 21.7.1984 at about 9.00 A.M., found accused-respondent Fakir Mohammad selling cow milk. He took sample of the milk weighing 660 ml. vide Ex.P/I and prepared Ex.P/2 Fard, a copy of which was given to the accused-respondent. The sample of milk was sent to Public Analyst, Public Health Laboratory, Jodhpur, Public Analyst vide its report dated 2.8.1984 opined that the sample does not conform to the prescribed standards of purity under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (for short 'the Rules of 1995') and was found adulterated. The sample contained about 41% of added water. The Local Health Authority and Chief Medical and Health Officer.Barmer vide Ex.P/3 order dated 14.8.1984 issued consent to prosecute the accused-respondent and authorised PW.4 P.C.Harsh, Food Inspector, Barmer to file a complaint before the competent court. The complaint was filed in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barmer. Accused-respondent pleaded not guilty and preferred for the trial oft he case.

(3.) Prosecution had produced PW. 1 Jethmal, PW.2 Kishna Ram, PW.3 Dr.Kishore Chand Bafna and PW.4 P.C. Harsh, Food Inspector. Statement of accused-respondent was recorded under section 313 Crimial P.C. He denied the prosecution evidence against him. He himself appeared as DW.I and stated that the entire prosecution case is false. He used to run a cycle shop and he had nothing to do with selling of the milk. He further stated that on the relevant date, neither he was selling the milk nor any sample was taken from him.