STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. NAGJI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the State after obtaining leave to appeal under section 378 (iii) Cr. P. C against the judgment dated 25th, April, 1977, passed by the Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gangapur (Bhilwara) in Criminal Case No. 270 of 1976 whereby respondent Nagji Ram was acquitted of the offence under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act' ). The case of the prosecution is that on 14th January, 1976, at about 9 A. M. the respondent was selling milk,, Shri Prakash Chandra (P. W. I), Food Inspector, Gangapur, suspecting that milk was adulterated, purchased 660 mililitres of milk from the respondent after paying the price for the same. After purchasing the said milk he divided it into three parts and put it in three separate bottles and after putting the requisite quantity of formalin in each bottle he sealed the said bottles in the presence of Chhagan Lalp. W. 2. One bottle was given to the respondent and out of the remaining two bottles one bottle was sent for Chemical Examination to the Public Analyst along with Memo (Ex. P. 5 ). The report (Ex. P. 6) received from the Public Analyst showed that the sample of milk sent to him was adulterated, as it contained about 17 percent of added water. Thereafter, the Food Inspector, after obtaining the sanction of the Chairman, Municipal Board, Gangapur, under section 20 of the Act filed a complaint in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhilwara. The said complaint was transferred by the Chief Judicial Magistrate for trial to the Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gangapur. The Judicial Magistrate by his Judgment dated 25th April, 1977, acquitted the respondent of the charge under section 7/16 of the Act on the view that there was non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of Rule 18 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, (hereinafter referred to as the 'rules' inasmuch as prosecution had failed to establish that the specimen impression of the seal by which container containing the sample had been sealed, had been sent separately to the Public Analyst by registered post or by hand, Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order of acquittal passed by the Judicial Magistrate, the State has filed this appeal after obtaining leave to appeal from this Court.

(2.) I have heard Mr. Niyajuddin Khan, learned Public Prosecutor for the State and Mr. N. P. Gupta learned counsel for the respondent.

(3.) IN the circumstances, the judgment of acquittal passed by Judicial Magistrate has to be affirmed. The appeal, therefore, fails and it is accordingly dismissed. .