STATE Vs. SAJJAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant the State of Madhya Pradesh challenges the acquittal of the respondent-accused of charges under section 7/16(l)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter called 'the Act') It M.F.C., Bhanpura by his judgment dated 6 6.1983.

(2.) Prosecution story is that on 4.12.1981. Atalbihari Chowdhari (P.W. 1) took sample of milk in the prescribed - quantity from the respondent, distributed the same in three bottles and properly sealed them. The Public Analyst by his report Ex. P/6, on analysis found Fat-2.6% and Solids not Fat-2.4% and opined that the sample did not conform to the standards laid down under the Act. The complaint was then put up against accused-respondent for breach of provisions of the Act. The respondent pleaded not guilty to the charge under section 16(1)(a)(i) and (ii) of the Food Adulteration Act, 1954 read with the provisions rule 50(1) and section 7(iii) of the Act. In his examination the respondent denied all the material allegations and examined Karan Singh and Rashid as defence witnesses. Learned Judicial Magistrate acquitted the respondent of the charges under section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act for selling adulterated milk on the ground that evidence of Food Inspector, Atalbihari Choudhari was not corroborated by other witnesses He, however, convicted the appellant under section 16(1)(a)(ii) of the Act for not being possessed of requisite licence and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment till rising of the Court and fine of Rs. 40 in default, to suffer 15 days simple imprisonment.

(3.) At the hearing of the appeal, Shri S.K. Pawnekar, learned Panel Lawyer for the State relying on the decision of this Court in Municipal Council Vs. Madanlal, 1086 MPLJ 232 submitted that the Judicial Magistrate was in error in acquitting the respondent of the charge under section 16(1) (a)(i) of the Act as the Food Inspector's evidence could be accepted even without corroboration. He also drew my attention to the Division Bench decision of this Court in Vasudev Bhatt Vs. Ganpat and others, 1975 MPLJ 216. and submitted that in the event of his plea being found acceptable, the respondent's conviction under section 16(1)(a)(ii) could not stand.