STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. SHRI TULSIRAM
LAWS(MPH)-1969-11-3
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Decided on November 18,1969

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Appellant
VERSUS
TULSIRAM Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) THIS judgment shall also govern the disposal of Criminal Appeal No. 683 of 1966 (The State of M. P. v. Kishanaji s/o Bapu ). These appeals arise out of different cases unconnected with each other. But, as we happened to hear them on the same day and as they involved the same question of law, we thought it necessary to dispose them of by a common judgment. The only common thing in both the cases is that the same Food Inspector, Shri R. P. Shrivastava, had taken the samples of milk from the respective respondents on 26-5-1965 at village Manpur, where the respondents had gone to sell the milk. However, we propose to deal with the facts of each case separately.
(2.) THE Food Inspector, Shri R. P. Shrivastava, (P. W. 1) had taken the sample of milk from Tulsiram on 26-5-1965. All formalities had been done by the Food inspector and he put one drop of formalin for each ounce of milk in the bottles which were duly sealed in the presence of attesting witnesses. One sample bottle was sent to the Public Analyst on 28-5-1965. It is not known as to when the Public analyst received the sample. However, he issued a report, dated 11-6-1965 (Ex. P/7), wherein he observed that milk fat was 4%, while non-fat solids were 7%. Further, he opined that the milk was adulterated indicating the presence of 22% of added water. He also stated that no change had taken place in the constitution of the sample that would interfere with the analysis. The report was actually sent by him on 11-6-1965. The Public Analyst might have conducted the test at the latest on 11-6-1965 or some time earlier, which means after 15 days of the samples being taken.
(3.) THEREAFTER, on 14-8-1965, the Food Inspector filed a complaint against Tulsiram and the respondent actually appeared on 11-9-1965. It appears that he was served on the same day and it was on that date, namely, 11-9-1965, that he could have an opportunity of making a demand for sending any of the remaining sample bottles to the Director of Central Food Laboratory for examination so as to challenge the report of the Public Analyst.;


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