STATE OF M.P. Vs. BHAGAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sample of mixed milk of cow and buffaloes purchased by the Food Inspector on 21-6-1977 from the respondent-accused. After completing the requisite formalities the sample-bottles were sent to the Public Analyst who, vide his report Ex. P-7, opined that the sample was below the prescribed standard-percentage of fat and solid non-fat having been specially mentioned in his report. The respondent-accused was put up for trial. He denied the factum of sale and particularly contended that as a servant of DW 1 Uttam Chand Jain, he was taking the milk for his master for delivery. Master Uttain Chand Jain was examined in defence. The trial Court, in the light of the evidence on record, held that the factum of sale had not been proved beyond any shadow of doubt in the absence of evidence of the independent witnesses. Defence stand was equally accepted that the respondent-accused was not a milk-vendor and that he was carrying the milk for his master's use. However, the principal ground for acquittal was that the report of the Public Analyst in the matter of adulteration was not dependable, inasmuch as, the sample of milk was examined by him one and half months after the sample was purchased ; and there was no proof regarding the sample having been kept in the refrigerator to avoid the chances of any deterioration. The respondent-accused was, hence, acquitted by giving him the benefit of doubt. Hence, now, the State appeal.

(2.) On scrutiny of the trial Court's record, all the reasonings and findings of the trial Court are found to be thoroughly perverse. It is a matter of common experience that in the cases of offences of economic nature or anti-social nature independent witnesses, quite often, turn hostile for obvious reasons ; and in these circumstances, even the solitary evidence of the Food Inspector need to be evaluated, though with caution. There is nothing on record to indicate that the Food Inspector concerned had any animus against the respondent-accused. His evidence is honest and straight forward, without any tainting. The necessary documents regarding the purchase of the sample and regarding completing other formalities at the time of the taking of the sample before witnesses, are already on record and are, all, signed not only by the Food Inspector but also by the respondent accused and panch witnesses. There is no reason to doubt the same. It is clearly proved that the Food Inspector had purchased the sample from the respondent-accused and such purchase is obviously covered under the definition of "sale" as given in Sec. 2(xiii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

(3.) Then again, from the Food Inspector's oral testimony, coupled with the Panchnama Ex. P-4, there is no scope for doubt that the respondent-accused had been carrying about seven litres of milk for sale and not for the personal use of his master DW 1 Uttam Chand Jain, whose evidence obviously does not deserve any credence. The trial Court's findings in this regard deserve to be set aside.