State of Punjab vs Sabhu Ram

H.K. Sandhu, J.

Sabhu Ram accusedrespondent was tried for an offence Under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act by Shri G.S. Dhaliwal, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Fazilka. He was held guilty and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/. Against this judgment Sabhu Ram filed an appeal which was accepted by Shri J.C. Aggarwal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, vide his judgment dated 25111982. It is this judgment acquitting the respondent which has been assailed by way of this appeal by the State of Punjab.

The prosecution case, in brief, was that on 1891977 the respondent was found in possession of 50 kilograms of unindicated milk for sale in the area of city Abohar when he was intercepted by Dr. S K. Gupta Food Inspector who purchased 660 mililitres of milk. The milk so purchased was divided into three parts and was sealed in three dry and clean bottles as per rules. One of the bottles was sent to the Public Analyst who on analysis, submitted his report showing that the sample contained milk fat 6.5 per cent and milk solids not fat 8.6 per cent. It was deficient in milk solids not fat by 4 per cent of the minimum prescribed standard and was thus adulterated.

At trial the contention of the respondent was that he dealt in cow''s milk. He denied all the other allegations made against him.

We have heard Shri Randhir Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, for the appellant, Shri A.K. Chopra, Advocate, for the respondent and have perused the records.

Before the learned lower Appellate Court various contentions were raised on behalf of the accusedrespondent which did not find favour but the appeal of the respondent was accepted on the ground that there was no compliance of the mandatory rules 17 and 18 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. As the prosecution had not examined the person who carried the sample to the Public Analyst and thus, possibility of tampering with the sample could not be ruled out. The learned counsel for the Punjab State contended that there was certificate of the Public Analyst on his report Ex. PE that he received the sealed packet containing sealed container of one part of the sample and a memo in form No. II and that the seal of the sealed packet tallied with the specimen of the seal sent separately and that certificate itself was sufficient to show that the sample was not tempered with during transit and examination of the messenger was not indispensable.

This submission of the learned counsel is not tenable in view of the law laid down in various cases. In the case of Nasib Chand v. The State (Union Territory, Chandigarh), 1981 All India Prevention of Food Adulteration Journal 156, sample was sent to the Public Analyst through a peon but the peon was not examined. It was,held :

"Non examination of the peon who took the sample of the case to the Public Analyst was a breach of Rules 17 and 18 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 which vitiated the trial."

Findings to similar effect were given in the case of Krishan Lal v. The State of Punjab, 1982 All India Prevention of Food Adulteration Journal 61. In the instant case neither the person who took the sample to the office of the Public Analyst was produced in the witness box nor his affidavit was placed on record and as such link evidence was missing benefit of which was to go to the accusedrespondent.

The statements of the witnesses, in this case show that the milk found in possession of the respondent was not buffalo''s milk but it was unindicated mixed milk. According to the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules mixed milk'' means a combination of milk of cow, buffalo, sheep, goat or any other milch animal and may be a combination of any of these milks which has been made and conforms to the standards given in the table at item No. A. 11.01.11. The minimum prescribed standard for the mixed milk as given in the table is milk fat 4.5 per cent and milk solids not fat 8 5 per cent. The report of the Public Analyst Ex. PE shows that in the instant case milk fat was 6.5 per cent and milk solids not fat 8.6 per cent. The sample sent to the Public Analyst was, thus, not deficient in either milk fat or milk solids not fat contents and the milk was not adulterated. The respondent was not liable for any offence. He has been rightly acquitted by the learned lower Appellate Court and there is no justification for interfering with the order of acquittal.

As a result we do not find any force in the appeal and dismiss the same.