MAJID HUSSAIN ZAMALI, FOOD INSPECTOR Vs. RAMLAL SAHU
LAWS(MPH)-1980-9-57
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Decided on September 30,1980

Majid Hussain Zamali, Food Inspector Appellant
VERSUS
Ramlal Sahu Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

DHAN KUMAR VS. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

R.L. Murab, J. - (1.)The following are the facts and not disputed by the parties in appeal:-
On 11-10-1973, the Hasali Colony, Vidisha Food Inspector Mazid Hussain (P.W. 1) took sample of mixed milk of buffalo and cow from the container in which the respondent was carrying. Before purchase of the sample of milk, a notice Ex. P-1 was given to the respondent; 660 ML of the milk was equally divided into 3 cleaned bottles and after adding 18 drops of formaline the same were sealed. Ex. P-2 is the receipt of the purchase of the milk. One of the seized bottles was given to the respondent, one was sent to Public Analyst and one was retained for the court. Ex. P.3 panchnama was drawn up for above formalities. Along with the bottle a memo Ex P.4 bearing the impression of the seal was sent to the Public Analyst. The report Ex. P.5 of the Public Analyst was that the milk was sub.standard. Thereupon, the respondent was prosecuted.

(2.)I have formed the opinion that this appeal should be dismissed. The trial court has acquitted the respondent on the following grounds :
(i) that the prosecution has failed to prove that the respondent was carrying on the business of sale of milk and the said milk was stored by him for sale ;

(ii) that the provisions under Rule 18 framed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act were not followed.

(3.)Regarding the ground No. 2 about Rule No. 8, the finding of the Magistrate is not correct. On the other hand perusal of the statement of the Food Inspector Mazid Hussain (P.W. 1) para 5 would show that he did send the sample of the milk along with the memo Ex. P-4 bearing the impression of the seal to the Public Analyst. There is nothing to discredit this statement of the witness. On the other hand, his statement finds support from the report Ex. P.5 of the Public Analyst. Therein it was clearly mentioned that the impression of the seal as shown in Ex. P. 4 tallied with that on the sample bottle. The learned counsel for the respondent rightly conceded that the ground no. 2 mentioned above for a requital was not justified from the record.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.