STATE Vs. DATA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A complaint was filed against the accused respondent in the Court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Khetri which was Transferred to the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, jhunjhunu who after trial acquitted the accused vide his judgment dated 28-6-80. The offence is said to have been committed on 25-6-76. The learned Chief judicial Magistrate acquitted the accused respondent on the ground that the provisions contained in section 13 (2) of the P.F.A. Act has not been complied with, and that the case against the accused respondent has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Learned Magistrate acquitted the accused respondent on this ground also that the fat contents found in the report of the Public Analyst were more than the prescribed standard. The Court, therefore, while placing on the case of Paras Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan, 1978 RCC 324 acquitted the accused respondent holding that the milk sold by the accused was not adulterated.

(2.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. Sec. 13 of the P.F.A. Act, 1954 has been substituted by Act No. 34 of 1976 and the same has been made enforceable w.e.f. 1-4-76. Under section 13(2) of the Act it has been made obligatory on the part of the Local Health Authority who is competent to file a complaint to forward the copy of the result of the Analysis of the sample to the persons against whom the complaint has been filed. It has not been denied by the learned Public Prosecutor that the copy of the said report was not sent to the accused respondent. In this view of the matter the learned trial court was justified in holding that the provisions contained in Sec. 13 (2) of the Act has not been complied with. Learned Public Prosecutor failed to point out that the fat contents were not more than the standard prescribed and it was not possible to hold that the milk sold by the accused respondent was not pure by reason, merely of the shortage of the solid contents of the milk. In the present case the fat contents found in the milk was much higher then that prescribed under the rules. It, therefore, needs necessarily to the inference that no water had been added to the milk and in such case the mere circumstance that non-fat solid contents were below standard could only justify the inference either that the cow was not properly fed or that the Public Analyst was to some extent erroneous, but not the inference that the milk in question was not pure. In these circumstances, it cannot be held that the milk in question was adultered. Learned trial Court was, therefore justified in holding that the milk in question was pure.

(3.) In view of the foregoing discussions I do not find any reason to interfere in the findings recorded by the trial Court. This appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Appeal dismissed.