RAMCHAND Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE accused-petitioner was convicted by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bundi, in Criminal Case No. 120/76 under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and was sentenced to undergo six months R. I. and a fine of Rs. 1,000/ -. or in default to further suffer 3 months R. I. He preferred an anneal before the learned Sessions Judge, Bundi, who affirmed the conviction and sentence of the accused-petitioner.

(2.) MUNNALAL Verma (PW1) was Food Inspector, Bundi in the month of April, 1975. On 12-12-75 in Chhotu Bazar. Bundi at 7 A. M. , he saw that the accused-petitioner was carrying about io Kg. bf milk in two cans for being sold. He suspected the milk to be adulterated, and, therefore, he gave information in Form No. 6 and purchased 660 Ml. of cow milk after paying 0. 90 P. as its price vide receipt Ex. P. 2. It was divided into three parts and each part was filled in a clean phial and to each of the samples 18 drops of formalin were added. Each sample was thereafter wrapped, corked according to (he rules, and the number of the sample was marked as HL/84/79. The two notbirs, Jodhsineh and Gopilal were present at the time when the sample of the milk was taken. One sample duly sealed was sent to the Public Analyst along with Form No. 7, and a copy of the memo and the specimen of the seal used to seal the packet of sample was sent separately, The sample was examined on 22-12-75 and the Public Analyst found as follows: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_73_TLRAJ0_1979Html1.htm</FRM> The Public Analyst was of the opinion that the sample of cow milk was adulterated by reason of its containing 24% of added water. A complaint was filed against the accused-petitioner in the court of the learned Magistrate, and after recording pre-charge evidence, a charge under Section 7/16 of the Act was framed against the accused-petitioner, who pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. Thereafter, the witnesses were further cross-examined, and the statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313. Cr. P. C. He admitted that the sample of milk was taken from him. An application was filed by the accused under Section 13 (2) of the Act for sending the sample in the court to the Director, Central Food Laboratory. The Director, Central Food Laboratory, on examining the sample, found as follows: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_73_TLRAJ0_1979Html2.htm</FRM> The Director was further of the opinion that the sample of cow milk did not conform to the standard prescribed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, and as such it was adulterated. After the receipt of the report of the Director, Central Food Laboratory, the accused was further examined under Section 313. Cr. P. C, but still denied that the milk was adulterated. The accused examined one Gopilal in defence. The learned Magistrate convicted and sentenced the accused, as aforesaid, and on appeal the same were affirmed.

(3.) THE learned Advocate has raised a three-fold submission: (1) that the fat contents were more than the prescribed standard, and as such the article of food was not adulterated; and (2) that in the report of the Director. Central Food Laboratory, the fat contents were found to be 4%, when as per the standard quality of the various articles of Food has been specified in Appendix 'b' to the Rules,. cow milk must contain minimum 3. 5% of milk fat and 8. 5% of milk solids non-fat in Rajasthan: (3) and that the written consent to prosecute the accused is not in accordance with law.