MUNICIPAL COUNCIL Vs. DESHRAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the Municipai Council, Sri Ganganagar, against the judgment of Magistrate, First Class, Sri Ganganagar dated 9 -1 1974, whereby the respondent was acquitted of the off nee Under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.

(2.) THE prosecution case, in brief, is that the Food Inspector Veer Singh (P.W. 1) checked the respondent, while he was proceeding on a cycle with a drum containing about 9 kilo of milk on 5 -8 -1968 at about 9, am. He had a licence for vending milk. He purchased 660 ml. milk for a sum of 0.75 p. vide receipt Ex. P/1 for analysis. The milk purchased was put into three clean and dry bottles in equal quantity and 18 drops of formalin were put into each of the bottles and thereafter the bottles were duly packed and sealed. This was all done in the presence of 'motbirs' Harjitsingh and Satyapal. In this connection memo Ex. P/2 was prepared at the time of the purchase of the sample. Notice in Form VI Ex. P/3 was given. One of the bottles of the sample was delivered to the accused and the other was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis. Specimen seal impression along with the forwarding letter, were separately sent to the Public Analyst through registered post. Thereafter the report of the Public Analyst Ex. P/7 was received and it was found that the sample was adulterated as it did not conform a the prescribed standard of purity. The fat c intents were found upto 3% and the solid non -fat contents were found upto 4.8% Bo'h were less to the prescribed standard, that is, 3.5% 'at contents and 8.5% solid nonfat contents. Thereafter he obtained the written consent for prosecution from the Offg. Administrator Shri Shiv Dayal Sardiwal Then a complaint was presented by him in the Court of Magistrate, First Class, Sri Ganganagar. The prosecution in this case examined Shri Veer Singh, Food Inspector and no other evidence was recorded. The accused denied the prosecution case, but no evidence was led by him in defence. The learned Magistrate, after hearing the parties, acquitted the accused on the following grounds: 1. that the prosecution did not examine any independent witness and he does not consider it proper to convict the accused on the sole testimony of the Food Inspector; 2. that the consent Ex. P/8 does not appear to be valid, as the prosecution has not adduced any evidence that Shri Sardiwal was the Administrator of the Municipal Council; and

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the reasons on which the learned Counsel has recorded the order of acquittal ate unfounded. His first contention is that Ex. P/8 consent is proved by the statement of Food Inspector and his authority was not challenged in the Court below. He also urged that Shri Sardiwal was appointed as Administrator vide notification No. F1(75) LSG/67/Lit dated 19 -9 -68 placed on the record of S.B Criminal Appeal No 410 of 1974 - Municipal Council, Sri Ganganagar v. Shyam Sunder and Anr. Shri Sardiwal signed the consent on 19 -10 -1968.