MUNICIPAL COUNCIL Vs. KANHAIYA LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MUNICIPAL Council, Kota has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 6 -12 -1980 by which, the trial court has acquitted the respondent from the charge Under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

(2.) THE Food Inspector on 16 -3 -1973 took sample of the milk of the respondent and kept in three separate bottles in equal proportion and sealed the bottles in presence of the motbirs. One of the bottles was dent for to Chemical examination to Public Analyst and on examination it was found that the sample contained about 9% water and abstraction of about 53% of original fat. One sample was also sent by the respondent accused to the Director Central Food Laboratories Calcutta and no receipt of the report it was found that the milk was not upto the standard of purity. A complaint was filed before the Judicial Magistrate and after trial the learned Magistrate, found that the case against accused is not made out beyond reasonable doubt and he acquitted that respondent.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the respondent argued that the trial court found that the sample of the milk was taken without proper stirring of the milk. It was also found that the Food Inspector himself did not take the sample but the milk was given by the respondent accused himself. Next ground for acquittal was that along with the sample a copy of the memorandum was not sent and the specimen of the seal which was affixed on the bottle of the sample was also not sent. Therefore, the learned trial court has not committed any error in acquitting the respondent. The learned Counsel for the respondent Shri Mehrish based his arguments on the case of State of Rajasthan v. Kachab 1979 WLN 138. This case is also Under Section 7/16 of the PFA Act. The Inspector took the sample of milk but he did not mix the milk thorughly, therefore, the Division Bench of this Court while rejecting the appeal of the State against the acquittal observed as under: The Food Inspector while taking the sample of the milk did not take steps to ensure that the milk, out of which the sample is taken is mixed thoroughly either by stirring with a long handled dipper or by pouring from one vessel to another or by shaking it gently, so that the sample may not fail to represent the milk to be tested. The sample of milk had globules or bubbles in it and the bubbles remained till the sample was filed in the bottles. Where sampling of milk has not been carefully done by the Food Inspector, it cannot safely held that the sample of milk sent to the Public Analyst, Jodhpur. truly respresented the milk to be tested. Hence in our view, there are no compelling reasons to set aside the acquittal of the respondent for the offence Under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Act.