NORATANMAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is preferred against the judgment dated 24.3.76., whereby, the appeal of the accused petitioner was rejected and his conviction under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, was maintained.

(2.) The facts briefly stated are : that on 21.5.1972., at about 10.15 A. M., some milk sample was purchased from the accused petitioner by the Food Inspector, Sujangarh. The sample was divided into three parts and sealed. One bottle was sent to the Public Analyst, who, after examining the same, was of the opinion that milk was adulterated. A challan was filed against the accused petitioner, and the learned Magistrate believing the prosecution case, convicted the accused petitioner, which was also maintained in appeal. 3. The only argument before the Court is that the prosecution has led no evidence to show that preservative was added to the milk sample, at the time, it was sealed, The Food Inspector has not said a word in his statement as to whether any formalin was added to the milk sample. This fact, is, of course, mentioned in the Panchnama, which by itself, is not sufficient to prove the fact. I have considered the argument, which, in my opinion, has much substance. The narration of the fact contained in the Panchnama by itself is not a substantive piece of evidence and could not be made use of to prove that fact. The Panchnama is nothing but memorandum of a certain events which took place, and therefore, it can only be made use of either to refresh the memorandum of the maker of it or to corroborate the statement of its maker. In my opinion, therefore, there is a breach of mandatory provision of Rule 20 of the Rules made under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, and therefore, the trial is vitiated. In the absence of any evidence as to the fact that formalin was added to the milk sample, it could not be said that it was properly analysed. The prosecution has, thus, failed to prove that the milk was adulterated. I am fortified in my conclusion by the observation in the case of Maheshwar Prasad Vs. State of Rajasthan (R. L. W. 1968, Page-319) .

(3.) The prosecution has, therefore, failed to prove any offence beyond reasonable doubt against the accused.