State of Punjab vs Munshi Ram and ors.

J.S. Sekhon, J. (Oral)

On 1771985, Food Inspector S. L. Lamba (PW11) alongwith Dr. Mohan Dev Saini (PW3) and one Paramjit took sample of cow''s milk from the bulk of milk being carried by Munshi Ram accused on a bicycle. He was carrying cow''s milk in two drums on his bicycle, each containing 16 kgs. of milk. The sample was divided into three equal parts and after adding two drops of formaline per 25 ml/gms was transferred and sealed into three dry containers. The Public Analyst vide his report Ext. PE found the sample to be deficient in milk fat by 7.5% and in milk solids not fat by 23.5%. On receipt of report Ext. PE from the Public Analyst, complaint Ext. PG was filed against the accused respondent.

Before the trial Court, Mr. S. L. Lamba, appeared as PW I besides examining Dr. Mohan Dev Saini as PWs. Onkar Singh (PW2) and Suraj Parkash (PW4) were examined in order to prove that the sample was kept intact till it was tested by the Public Analyst. Paramjit (PW) was given up as having won over by the accused. The version of the accusedrespondent before the trial Court was that of innocence and false implication contending that he was not carrying the milk for sale and rather was carrying 6 kgs. of milk to his maternal uncle''s house in connection with some social function there when the Food Inspector met him at the bus Adda Hariana and forced him to sign some papers besides taking sample of the milk. In support of his defence he examined Paramjit Singh, the above referred witness given up by the prosecution and his maternal uncle Arjan Dass.

The trial Court believing the version of the accused that he was carrying the milk not for sale and rather was carrying it for consumption of his maternal uncle, acquitted the accusedrespondent of the charge punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.

Feeling aggrieved against the order of acquittal the State has come up in appeal.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties besides perusing the record. Apart from the observations of the trial Court that the accused was not carrying milk for sale, it transpires that the prosecution version yet suffers from another infirmity relating to the nonstirring of the sample milk before taking its sample. It is noteworthy that this factum of stirring of milk figured for the first time in the complaint Ex. PG filed on 28.81985 although the sample of milk was taken on 1771985. In the seizure memo. Ext. PF this fact is conspicuously missing. If that is so, then the mentioning of this fact in the complaint filed after one month is an afterthought and improvement. Thus the testimony of Sh. S.L. Lamba (PW1) and Dr Mohan Dev Saini (PW3) in this regard being an afterthought is not sufficient to hold that the milk was homogeneously mixed before taking its sample. It is noteworthly that the accused was carrying milk in two drums on his bicycle. From the act of driving the bicycle, the contents of milk fat would come towards its upper layer. This under these circumstances, the stirring of milk properly in order, to make it homogeneous was repuired in order to ascertain whether it was really deficient in milk fat or milk solids not fat. Thus due to nontaking of sample after proper stirring of the milk, the possibility cannot be ruled out that deficiency in milk fat and milk solidshad cropped up as a result of defect in the sampling. If that is so, then it cannot be said that the accused was carrying adulterated milk for sale as the benefit of doubt has to be given to the accused and not to the prosecution.

For the reasons recorded above we find no justification to interfere with the wellreasoned order of acquittal of the trial Court. This appeal, therefore, fails and the same is order to be dismissed.