STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. NETI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts of this appeal are, that Food Inspector R.B. Singh of circle Kalindari. District Sirchi filed a complaint under Sec. 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 in the court, of the Magistrate First Class Sirohi that on 7-5-68 at 6.10 A.M. be went to village Rampura & purchased buffalo milk from the accused Neti who was selling buffalo, milk. He divided the milk into three parties and placed it into three separate phials; one phial was delivered to the accused, another was sent to the public analyst and the third was kept by him. The public analyst, Jodhpur, reported that the sample milk contained fat 4.5% and solid non fat 8.1% and therefore, was adulterated because it did not conform to the prescribed standards of purity. The said food inspector requested the Magistrate for trial.

(2.) After trial the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Sirohi, acquired the Accused on the ground that the food Inspector had. not complied with ,the various rules. The contravention is said to have been taken place on .account of the fact that the sample, was not taken in, the presence of independent witnesses. The two witnesses of the purchase, made by the food Inspector, did not belong to village Rampura but were residents of Kalindari and one of them was a vaccinator and the other a ceon, both being employees of the Medical and Health Department Second fault found in the proceedings of the, said Inspector was, that there was no evidence corroborating the sealing and labelling of the there divided samples. No sample bottle was provided in the court to enable it to prove the sample examined. The food Inspector further violated Rule 17 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 by, not sending the covering memo with the sample so that the public analyst could compare the seals, and Rule 18 was violated by not pending, a copy of the similar memo by post. It also appears that the first phial which was sent by the Public Analyst was broken, but there is no record to show that the Public, Analyst was sent the second phial for examination. In view of these contraventions of the provisions of the rules, the It learned Magistrate considered the case of the prosecution doubtful and dismissed the complaint and acquitted the accessed by his judgment dated 29 5.1970. Hence this appeal by the State.

(3.) I have heard arguments and perused the record. The principles which should guide the High Court in case of appeals against acquittal are too well known to be repeated The learned public prosecutor submitted that the impugned judgment was illegal and perverse. There was no justification for rejecting the testimony of Bhanwar Lal P.W. 2 simply on the ground that he was an employee of the Public Health Department Even if there was no supporting witness, the testimony of the food inspector R.B. Singh PW 1 was sufficient to prove the prosecution case. None of these two witnesses was even cross-examined. The learned Magistrate further erred in holding that the food inspector violated the rules relating to taking of sample and relating to dispatch of the same to the public analyst for examination. It there was any such breach as pointed by the learned Magistrate, that could not provide sufficient ground for acquittal because the rules were only directory. The learned Public Prosecutor cited Shambhu Narain Vs. Moti Lal 1971 WLN 108 in support of his contention. In that case breach of Rule 18 was considered a mere technical irregularity.