MUNICIPAL COUNCIL JAIPUR Vs. GYARSI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the Municipal Council Jaipur City, on leave granted by this Court under sec. 417 sub-sec. (3) Criminal P. C. , against the order of the Municipal Magistrate, Jaipur City, dated 2nd August, 1963, acquitting the respondent Gyarsilal of an offence under sec. 7 read with sec. 16 of the prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act ).

(2.) THE material facts leading to this appeal may be stated as follows: THE accused-respondent Gyarsilal is a resident of Jaipur and is a licence holder for selling milk and sweet-meats. His shop was checked by the Food Inspector Tribhuvan Das Saxena PW-1 on 24th February, 1962. THE accused-respondent had two 'charis or pots' containing milk at his shop. THE Food Inspector treating the milk contained in them as the milk intended for sale and entertaining suspicion about the purity of the milk, obtained | seer of milk from one of the pots and paid 47 np to the accused. THE accused executed a receipt Ex. P-l acknowledging the receipt of 47 np. THE Food Inspector then divided the sample into three portions and put them into three phials. THE phials were properly labelled and sealed. THE Food Inspector gave notice Ex. P-2 to the accused-respondent in the prescribed form VI of his intention to have the milt analysed. He also gave one phial to the accused-respondent. THE form VI was duly thumb impressed by the accused-respondent. THE Food Inspector associated Surajnarain P. W. 3 and Purshotamdas as motbirs at the time of the raid and both of them attested the receipt Ex. P-l and the form VI (Ex. P-2 ). One of the phials containing the milk was sent to the Public Analyst, Rajasthan, Jaipur, on the same day. THE Public Analyst examined the milk on 26th and 27th March, 1962 and found that the milk was adulterated. After the receipt of the report from the Public Analyst the Food Inspector placed all the relevant papers before the President, Municipal Council, Jaipur. THE President, after scrutiny, took decision to prosecute the respondent and filed a complaint in the court of Municipal Magistrate, Jaipur City. In the complaint, it was alleged that the respondent had committed a similar offence on a previous occasion and consequently, it was prayed that the respondent should be awarded an enhanced sentence. On the allegation that the offence committed by the respondent was a second offence, warrant-case procedure was adopted. THE prosecution examined Tribhuvan Das Saxena P. W. 1, Shyam Behari Lal Saxena President, Municipal Council, Jaipur, P. W. 2, and Surajnarain P. W. 3 and closed their evidence.

(3.) SURAJNARAIN in cross examination stated that when the Food Inspector committed the raid on the shop of the accused-respondent three or four 'thateras' were persent. He, however, added that he did not know them by names but knew them only by faces. They were talking with the accused-respondent for prepara-tion of 'kheer' and 'malpuva'. He, however, did not remember whether the Tha-teras had told at the time of the raid that the milk belonged to them. He also did not remember whether the Thateras had asked the Food Inspector to pay the price of the sample to them. He also expressed ignorance about the fact whether the Food Inspector had given a threat to the accused that he would call the police on non-acceptance of price. Ram Gopal DW/1 alleged his presence at the time of the raid and further stated that he had told the Food Inspector that the milk belonged to him and that the sample should not be taken. He also states to have told the Food Inspector that the milk had been brought to the shop of the accused for the preparation of 'kheer'.