MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, JAIPUR Vs. MANGAL RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts of this appeal are that food inspector Municipal Council, Jaipur, checked the milk of the respondent Mangal Ram at 10-00 a.m. on 14-6-68 outside the chandpol gate at the bus stand. The food inspector purchased a sample out of the drum which contained one maund of milk. The sample was divided into three parts and put into three separate bottles. Requisite quantity of formalin was added. The name of the animal was not written on the drum. One of the sample bottles was sent for chemical examiner, who reported that the milk was adulterated because it contained 17 per cent of added water.

(2.) After obtaining requisite authority a complaint was lodged against the respondent under section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The learned Magistrate acquitted the accused on the following grounds:-

(3.) The Municipal Council Jaipur has filed this appeal against the order of acquittal. I have heard the learned council and perused the record. I will dispose of the second objection first. It is now well settled by the authorities of the Supreme Court that a person cannot be said to have been deprived of his right under section 13 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act to have the sample analysed by the Central Food Laboratory until he makes an application in that behalf and further more until, the Central Food Laboratory reported that the sample was unfit for analysis. Until then, no right arises in favour of the accused respondent. He can not be said to have been deprived of the benefit of an examination by the Central Food Laboratory until the Laboratory had a chance to see the sample and say that it has ceased to be incapable of analysis. Since, the respondent made no such application the argument founded upon sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act cannot be upheld. Some decisions of the Allahabad High Court were cited before me in which it was held that the sample becomes unfit for analysis after ten months. May be so, but then it is not a case of non-analysis of the food. Here the question is whether the report of the Public Analyst should be believed or not. It provides good evidence until superseded by the report of the Central Food Laboratory. If he was not satisfied with the report of the public analyst, he should have made an application and if the respondent has not exercised his right to make an application and has waited until the food has become deteriorated, he himself has to blame. If any authority is needed, then one may refer to Ajit Prasad Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1972 SC 1631 . It was submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that he could exercise his right only when he could appear before the court and he could not do so until the process was served upon him. The delay in the service of process was not on account of him. but the failure was on the part of the prosecution. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the prosecution has been rending the process on the address of the accused but each time it was reported that the accused had left the known place of abode. I have verified this from the record and the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant seems to be correct. There is no deliberate attempt on the part of the prosecution to cause delay in the service of the process. The second ground given by the learned trial court for acquittal is therefore not correct.