MUNICIPAL COUNCIL JAIPUR Vs. SITARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MUNICIPAL Council, Jaipur has filed this appeal by special leave against the judgment dated December 24, 1970 of the MUNICIPAL Magistrate, First Glass, Jaipur City (West) whereby he acquitted the accused-respondent Sitaram under section 7 read with section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter to be called 'the Act')

(2.) THE prosecution story in a nutshell is that on January 16, 1968 at 7-30 a m. P. W. i Shri A. P. Goyal, Food Inspector, checked the shop of the accused-respondent located at Nahargarh Road, Purani Basti, Jaipur City. He found a bucket full of milk weighing nearly 8kg. and suspected it to be adulterated. Having disclosed his identity to the accused-respondent the Inspector served him a notice and then purchased 750 Gms. of milk for Rs. 1. 05 np. THE milk was divided into three parts. Each part was then filled in three clean and dry bottles. 16 drops of formalin were added to the milk filled in each bottle. All the three bottles were corked and sealed and wrapped in a paper which was signed by the Food Inspector and the attesting witnesses. A memorandum containing all the details of the action taken by the Food Inspector was prepared and is marked Ex P. 2. It bears the signatures of P. W. 1 A. P. Goyal, Food Inspector and two attesting witnesses P. W. 2 Harinarain and Ramesh Kumar. It also bears the signatures of the accused-respondent Sitaram, One sample of bottle was given to the accused-respondent and the other was delivered in the office of the Chief Public Analyst, Jaipur along with a specimen seal-impression. THE form containing the specimen seal-impression is Ex. P. 4. THE receipt for the delivery of the bottle in the office of the Chief Public Analyst, Rajasthan, Jaipur is also marked Ex. P. 4-A to B. THE third bottle was retained by the Food Inspector and was delivered in the office of the Health Officer, Municipal Council, Jaipur. THE sealed bottle was received by the Public Analyst on January 16, 1968 i. e. the date on which the same was purchased. It was analysed on January 17, 1968. He analysed the contents of the bottle and declared the result as under vide Ex. P. 5: - Fat contents . . . . . . 5-30 percent. Solid nonfat . . . . . . 7-82 percent. Cane Sugar and starch . . . . . . Nil. In the opinion of the Public Analyst the sample of milk was adulterated as it contained about 13 percent of added water. P. W. 1 A. P. Goyal, Food Inspector, filed a complaint in the Court of Municipal Magistrate, First Class, Jaipur against the accused-respondent Sitaram for his prosecution under section 7/16 of the Act. THE accused denied his complicity in the crime.

(3.) IN Food INspector vs. Charukattil Gopalan (3) Hon'ble Vaidialingam, J. , speaking for the Court laid the law thus : - "to sum up we are in agreement with the decision reported in Municipal Board, Faizabad vs. Lal Chand Surajmal and another and the Public Prosecutor vs. Palanisami Nadar to extent to which they lay down the principle that when there is a sale to the Food INspector under the Act of an article of food, which is found to be adulterated, the accused will be guilty of an offence punishable under sec. 16 (1) (a) (i) read with sec. 7 of the Act. We further agree that the article of food which has been purchased by the Food INspector need not have been liken the out from a larger quantity intended for sale. We are also of the opinion that the person from whom the article of food has been purchased by the Food INspector need not be a dealer as such in that article. We are not inclined to agree with the decisions laying the contrary propositions. "