STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. RAM DAYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the State against the judgment dated 25th April, 1973 passed by the Sessions Judge, Jodhpur in Criminal Appeal No. 110/72. By his judgment aforesaid, the Sessions Judge allowed the appeal filed by Ramdayal respondent against the judgment dated 10th November, 1972 passed by the Municipal Magistrate 1st Class, Jodhpur convicting the said respondent of the offence under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and sentencing him to simple imprisonment for a period of nine months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1200/- and in the event of non-payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. The Sessions Judge, while setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the respondent, quashed the proceedings and discharged the respondent.

(2.) THE facts, briefly stated, are that the respondent was a vendor of "kulfi" (milk ice cream) in a hand, cart. The licence for sale of "kulfi" was issued in the name of his brother Mohanlal. On 6th April, 1969, the respondent was selling kulfi near Stadium Cinema, Jodhpur, and Shri Chhattar Singh (P. W. 1), the Food Inspector purchased 600 gms. of milk ice cream from the respondent for a sum of Rs. 3/-after informing the respondent that he was purchasing it for the purpose of having it tested. This sample of milk ice cream was divided into three equal parts and after adding necessary preservatives, the three parts were duly sealed in three separate bottles. One sealed bottle was handed over to the respondent and the other bottle containing the sample of milk ice cream was sent to the Public Analyst, Jodhpur vide Memo Ex. P-3. From the report (Ex. P-4) received from the Public Analyst, it appeared that the sample of milk ice cream was adulterated as it did not conform to the prescribed standard of purity and that the fat contents and1 the total solids were less than the prescribed quantity. After receiving the report of the Public Analyst, the Food Inspector Shri Chhattar Singh obtained the sanction of the Commissioner, Municipal Council, Jodhpur, for filing the complaint and thereafter he filed a complaint against the respondent and the Mohanlal in the Court of Magistrate, 1st Class, Jodhpur and both the accused persons were tried for the offence under Section 7/16 of the Act before the Municipal Magistrate, Jodhpur. Both the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

(3.) THE prosecution in support of its case, examined the Food Inspector, Shri Chhattar Singh (P. W. 1) and Majid Khan (P. W. 2), the attesting witness to the memo (Ex. P-1) prepared by the Food Inspector after purchasing the sample of the milk ice cream from the respondent, as well as the inventory, form (Ex. P-2) prepared by him at the spot. The prosecution has also produced the memo (Ex. P-3) prepared by the Food Inspector, which was sent to the Public Analyst along with the sealed bottle containing the sample, the report (Ex. P4) of the Public Analyst, the memo (Ex. P-5) prepared by the Food Inspector after obtaining the report of the Public Analyst and the order (Ex. P-6) passed by the Commissioner Municipal Council, Jodhpur granting sanction for filing of complaint against the respondent. The respondent in his statement recorded under Section 342 Cr. P. C. denied that he was selling milk ice cream and he denied that the sample of milk ice cream was taken in his presence and has stated that the memos were not prepared at the spot but were prepared separately.