MUNICIPAL COUNCIL GANGANAGAR Vs. NARESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the Municipal Council, Sri Ganganagar, against the judgment dated 8 81973 passed by the Magistrate, First Glass, Sri Ganganagar, whereby the accused respondent was convicted of the offence under sec. 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.

(2.) THE prosecution case in brief is that the Food Inspector Veer Singh checked the accused-respondent Naresh Kumar on 18-11-1970 at about 8 30, a.m., when he was proceeding on a cycle carrying cow milk. He purchased 660 ml. milk for 0.85 p. for analysis vide receipt Ex. P/1. THE sample was put into three bottles in equal quantity and 18 drops of formalin were put in each bottle and thereafter the bottles were packed and sealed. It was all done in the presence of 'motbirs' Om Prakash and Ram Chandra. Memo Ex P/2 was prepared on which signatures of the accused respondent and the 'motbirs' were obtained. Form VI was prepared in duplicate. A copy thereof was given to the accused and the other copy is Ex. P/3. THE Food Inspector delivered one of the sealed sample bottles to the accused and one was sent to the Public Analyst, Bikaner, for analysis. THE specimen impression of the seal along with the memo was sent to the Public Analyst through registered letter. THE third copy of Form VI is Ex. P/4. One of its copy was sent along with the sample. On receipt of the report of the Public Analyst Ex P/5, it was found that the milk was adulterated by reason of its containing about 16% of added water. THE fat contents were 5.0% and the solid non-fat contents were 7.1% THE Food Inspector submitted all the papers to the Chairman, Municipal Council, Sri Ganganagar, for consent and obtained his consent Ex. P/6. THEreafter a complaint was presented by him in the Court of the Magistrate, First Class, Sri Ganganagar. THE learned Magistrate tried the accused. THE prosecution examined two witnesses Veer Singh and Ramchandra. THE accused denied the prosecution case and in his statement under sec. 342, Cr.P.C., he stated that analysis was not done properly and the sample was tempered. He moved an application on 24 2 1973 for sending the sample to the Director, Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta, but the same was rejected on the same day on the ground that the accused appeared on 31.3.1972 and the sample was taken on 18.11.1970. THE sample of milk does r?ot remain fit for analysis and two years are over since the sample was taken, so the application was rejected on the ground that there is no sense in sending the sample to the Director for analysis. THE learned Magistrate after trial and hearing, acquitted the accused on the ground that compliance of section 10 (7) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, has not been made. THE witness Ramchandra has not supported the statement of the Food Inspector and the other independent witness Shri Om Prakash has not been examined. THE acquittal was also recorded on the ground that the consent Ex.P/6 is not valid, the reason being that the offences under which the prosecution was sanctioned were not the offences under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. In the written consent the offences stated were under section 16 (1) (a) (g) (i) 16 (1) (a) (g) (ii). Dis-satisfied with the judgment of acquittal the Municipal Council has preferred this appeal after the grant of leave to appeal.

(3.) IN the light of the principle enunciated above the statement of Ram-Chandra can be judged and if it is found unworthy of credence having regard to the testimony of the Food INspector and the other material on record, such a statement would not in any way bind the complainant. It may be stated that Ramchandra has admitted his signatures on Form VI, Ex P/2 and Memo Ex. P/3. IN view of these signatures on these documents, it cannot be said that he is a truthful witness and his statement does not inspire confidence. Whatever he has stated, on that basis it cannot be found that the sample was taken in his presence. As regards the compliance of section 10(7) I find the statement of Veer Singh truthful and credible and nothing has come out in his cross examination so as to detract from the truthful character of his statement. According to him Om Prakash and Ramchandra both were called and in their presence the sample was taken and other formalities were completed. The sample was purchased and was put into the three bottles in equal quantity and three bottles were packed and sealed. IN Babulal Hargovindas vs. State of Gujarat (2) their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed that the provisions of Section 10(7) being salutary should be complied with by the Food INspector, This however does not mean that the evidence of the Food INspector who is not an accomplice, that he had complied with the requirements of law by calling a panch witness and taking his signature cannot be accepted without corroboration especially when the panch has admitted his signature.