Haryana State vs Rang Singh

S.S. Rathor, J.

Detailed facts of the prosecution case have been given in the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dabwali, acquitting the accused of an offence under Section 16(1)(i) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 thereinafter called the Act.)

A sample was collected out of 30 kilograms of cow''s milk from the possession of the accused by the Food Inspector on 13.11.1981. After completing necessary procedural formalities the sample was sent for analysis and the same was found deficient in its contents and as such adulterated vide Public Analyst''s report Ex. PE. Standard of purity of cow''s milk given in Item no. A.11.01.11 of Appendix B of the Act as applicable to the State of Haryana is :

Minimum percentage

Milk fat 4.0

Milk Solids not fat 8.5.

When compared to this standard of purity laid down under the statue, (vide Ex. PE) deficiency in Milk fat was found to be 70 per cent. Milk solids not fat was not found deficient, rather it was founding excess.

On the receipt of the report of the Public Analyst Ex. PE, the Food Inspector filed complaint dated 8.1.1982 (Ex. PE). In support of the allegations made in the complaint, statements of three prosecution witnesses namely PW1 Buta Singh Government Food Inspector, PW2 Doctor R.C. Chowdhary and PW3 Doctor S.K. Bhatnagar were recorded besides tendering in evidence various documents viz. Ex. AP to PH. The details of these documents are not necessary for just decision of the case.

After consideration of prosecution evidence on record and allegations in the complaint Ex. PF, the Trial Court came to a conclusion that there was no reliable evidence on record to suggest that the milk was properly stirred before sample was collected from the whole milk in question weighing 30 kilograms. Non mentioning of "stirring of milk" in the complaint Ex. PF was also taken note of with seriousness by the Trial Court. Taking cumulative effect of these facts on record. Trial Court recorded a positive finding that milk was not stirred and made homogeneous before taking sample and as the sample was not representative in nature, accused cannot be convicted.

The order of the Trial Court under challenge is perfectly just and legal. Complaint Ex PF is conspicuously silent on the point of stirring of milk before taking of sample. The Trial Court rightly placed reliance on the judgement reported as Surinder Kumar Versus State of U.T. Chandigarh, 1984 FAJ (Punjab and Haryana) 455. Similarly the Trial Court''s view that when fact regarding stirring of the milk before taking the sample is not mentioned in the complaint, the subsequent statement of the Food Inspector to the same effect would not be taken into consideration because it would be an improvement causing prejudice to the accused. In support of this observation the Trial Court has placed reliance on Dev Raj v. The State of Punjab, 1986 FAJ 448 : 1985(2) Recent Criminal Reports 248, Tara Chand v. State of Haryana, 1985(1) Recent Criminal Reports 393 : 1985 (1) CLR 260 and Gulshan v. State of Haryana, 1986(2) Recent Criminal Reports 49 : 1986 FAJ 535.

The order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court is based upon aforesaid judgments of this court which the Trial Court was duty bound to follow. Hence the order of acquittal is perfectly valid, legal and calls for no interference in this appeal against acquittal. Accordingly the State appeal is dismissed.