State of Haryana vs Suraj Mal

Amarjeet Chaudhary, J.

This is a State of Haryana Appeal against the order of acquittal dated 23.8.1985 of Sub Divisional (J) Magistrate, Hansi.

The brief facts of the case which led to the filing of the present appeal are that Food Inspector, Hansi, filed a complaint for prosecution of the accused respondent under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration, 1954 (thereinafter referred to as the `Act''). In brief, the allegation is that on 27.5.1982 at 6.45 p.m. Chand Ram Grewal, Food Inspector, accompanied by Dr Ramesh Kumar, Senior Medical Officer, and Shri Ganga Ram inspected/intercepted the premises of Suraj Mal, accusedrespondent, who was found in possession of about 10 Kgs. of cow and buffalo milk for sale contained in a drum. The Food Inspector demanded a sample of 660 mlg. by giving him notice in writing on Form VI prescribed under the Act. 660 mlg of cow and buffalo milk was purchased for analysis from the respondent accused for Rs. 2.65 against a receipt. The purchased milk was divided into three equal parts in three dry clean bottles. The bottles were labelled, wrapped and sealed with distinct seals at the spot. One sealed bottled/packet of the sample was sent to the Public Analyst, Haryana, Chandigarh alongwith memo in Form VII in a cover by Railway Parcel. The other two bottles of sample alongwith two copies of memo VII bearing seal impression were handed over to Local Health Authority on 27.5.1982 with seal intact. As per report of the Public Analyst Exhibit PE the milk fat in the sample analysed was found 6.1% against 4.5% whereas the milk solids not fat were found 8.1% against 8.5%. As such the milk solids not fat were found 5% deficient of the minimum prescribed standard of 8.5%. As such the respondent had committed an offence under the Act.

The trial Court after recording the evidence of the prosecution and the defence acquitted the accused respondent of the charge framed against him.

Aggrieved against the order of acquittal the State has filed the present appeal.

We have considered the submissions of the parties and perused the paperbook.

On the consideration of the matter, we find no merit in this appeal and the same deserves to be dismissed.

In this appeal, the question for determination is whether a milk vendor, whose sample of milk was found adulterated on analysis, can be acquitted of the charge under Section 7, read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act on the ground that in the complaint filed by the Food Inspector it was mentioned that the milk was not made homogeneous by stirring before the sample was taken.

We have perused the complaint Ex PE submitted by the complaint Food Inspector. It nowhere reveals that the milk was made homogeneous by stirring properly before the sample was taken from the accused respondent. The Food Inspector while appearing as PW 1 had stated at the trial that the milk was stirred before the sample was obtained. Thus the belated version of Chand Ram Grewal (PW1), Food Inspector, who had also filed the complaint is not acceptable especially the presence of more fat that the prescribed standard in the sample is not explainable on any other reasonable hypothesis is except that the fat being lighter had collected at the top layer of milk and the milk was not properly stirred before taking its sample.

A Division Bench of this Court in Cr. Appeal No. 502DBA of 1984 State of Punjab v. Jagan Nath had taken a view that if the Court comes to the conclusion from the prosecution evidence that the milk was not property stirred and made homogeneous, it is not bound to relay upon the report of the Public Analyst to base conviction of the milk vendor and it had also taken the view that to arrive at a conclusion that the milk was made homogeneous when the sample was taken the contents of the complaint have necessarily to be looked into.

In the present case, the factum that the milk was made homogeneous at the time the sample was taken from the accused respondent is missing as it nowhere been mentioned in the complaint that the milk was stirred properly for making it homogeneous before the sample was taken. We are in respectful agreement with the ratio of Jagan Nath''s case (supra).

For the foregoing reasons, we find no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed.