MUNICIPAL COUNCIL Vs. KANHAIYA LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed by special leave Under Section 417(3), Criminal Procedure Code against the judgment of the learned Municipal Magistrate First Class Court No. 2, Jaipur, dated 20th August, 1969 by which Kanhaiya Lal, respondent, was acquitted of the offence punishable Under Section 7/18 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act.

(2.) THE brief facts giving rise to This appeal may be stated as follows. On 6th May, 1966, at about 6 a.m. Kanhaiya Lal was carrying at in containing cow milk for sale. He had obtained a licence for selling cow milk from the Municipal Council Jaipur. In the way at Mirza Ismail Road, near Gopal Misthan Bhandar, he met Shri Prem Chand, Food Inspector of the Municipal Council, Jaipur, who disclosed his identity to the former and intimated to him that be was purchasing sample of milk for analysis. Thereafter the Food Inspector purchased twenty -four ounces of cow milk from Kanhaiyalal for 56 P. The Food Inspector divided the sample of the milk into three parts and poured each part into a bottle after adding sixteen drops of formalin to it as a preservative. He then corked, wrapped and sealed all the three bottles in the presence of Motbirs Dayal Singh and Ganga Ram. who were asked by the Food Inspector to put their signatures the wrappers and seals. Out of these three bottles, one was given to Kanhaiya Lal, the other was kept by the Food Inspector for production in court. The third one was sent to the Public Analyst, Jaipur, on 6th May, 1966 for analysis. The Public Analyst analysed the sample contained in the sealed bottle and made a report that the milk was adulterated as it contained fat content 3.2% and solids non -fat 6.52% instead of 3.5% and 8.50% respectively, which was the minimum prescribed. The Public Analyst further opined that the sample of the milk contained about 23% of added water. After the receipt of the report of the Public Analyst, the Food Inspector filed a complaint on 16th November, 1966, against Kanhaiya Lal Under Section 7/16 of the Act. It will not be out of place to mention that the Food Inspector was authorised to launch prosecution in food adulteration cases by the local authority, i.e. Administrator Municipal Council, Jaipur. The learned Municipal Magistrate, in whose court the complaint was filed, took cognizance of the offence against Kanhaiya Lal and tried him for the said offence.

(3.) AS regards the merits of the case, it may be observed that there is reliable evidence of the Food Inspector Prem Chand Ganga Ram and Dayal Singh Motnirs to prove the connection of the Respodent with the offence. The Food Inspector stated on oath that he had seen Kanhaiya Lal Respondent having a tin of cow milk in his possession for sale on 6th May, 1966 at Mitza Ismail Road, near Gopal Mashthan Bhandar He disclosed his identity to Kanhaiya Lal and informed the latter that he was purchasing sample of cow Milk for analysis. The Food Inspector further stated that he purchased 25 ounces of cow milk from Kanhaiya Lal for 56 P. and after dividing it into three partSectionpoured each part into a bottle after adding sixteen drops of formalin to it as a preservative. He then sealed each and every bottle in the presence of Dayal Singh and Ganga Ram. Both Dayal Singh and Ganga Ram have corroborated the version given out by the Food Inspector in all its essential particulars. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent could not assail the evidence of the Food Inspector and the two Motbirs before me on any reasonable score. Nothing has been elicited from their cross -examination which may destroy the value of their evidence or to impeach their credit. Consequently, I have no hesitation in placing reliance on their testimonies for convicting the Respondents of the offence punishable Under Section 7/16 of the Act The report of the Public Analyst clearly reveals that the sample f the cow -milk sent to him for analysis was found adulterated as it did not conform to the prescribed standard laid down under the rule for cow -milk. It is, therefore, proved by the prosecution that Kanhaiya Lal Respondent was selling adulterated cow -milk to customers. The trial court committed an error in not convicting him of the said offence. He is, therefore, convicted of the offence punishable Under Section 7/16 of the Act.