MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, JAIPUR Vs. BHURAMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Municipal Magistrate, Jaipur dated 29.12.1971. I have heard arguments and perused the record.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that Food Inspector Ram Gopal Sharma P.W. 1 checked accused respondent Bhura Mai at 10 a.m. on 19.4.1968, while he was selling milk on his shop situated at Lalji Sandh-ka-Rasta, Jaipur. The said inspector purchased the sample of milk, 750 gms. He divided the sample into three equal parts and filled the same in three separate bottles, added formalin 16 drops in each bottle and then sealed them. One of the sample bottle was sent to the Public Analyst whose report was that its fat contents were 5.4%, solids non-fat contents 7.33% and the sample was adulterated by reason of its containing about 18% of added water. Upon a complaint being filed and the respondent'being tried under clause (a) (i) of sub-section (1) of Sec. 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, he was acquitted by the said Magistrate. Hence, this appeal by the Municipal Council, Jaipur.

(3.) The grounds on which the learned Magistrate acquitted the respondent were two, namely ; (1) The sample was purchased on 19.4.68. The complaint was lodged on 10.9.68. The process for the first time was served upon the Court on 15.1.69. In these circumstances, it was held that the respondent was deprived of his valuable right under subsection (2) of Sec. 13 of the aforesaid Act to have the sample analysed by the Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta because by that time the sample should have deteriorated. Further-more, because the preservative added to the sample was below the prescribed quantity ; (2) The prosecution have produced four witnesses in support of its case. The learned Magistrate rejected their evidence on the ground that the Food Inspector Ram Gopal Sharma was not supported by independent witnesses. The so called independent witnesses comprised of one Goverdhan Singh who was a servant of the Municipality and was only expected to give evidence in favour of the prosecution. The other witness Ram Chandra has not fully supported the prosecution case. Moreover, he was of the caste of Ratn Gopal Food Inspector and was also of his acquaintance. This witness Ram Chandra went even to the extent of saying that he did not know whether the Food Inspector had actually purchased the sample from respondent Bhura Mai. Dr. Moti Lal P.W. 4 was considered only a formal witness.