Decided on June 11,1997

STATE OF H.P. Appellant
DHARAM SINGH Respondents

Referred Judgements :-


Cited Judgements :-



R.L. Khurana, J. - (1.)THE Respondent Dharam Singh upon having been tried for the offence under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, hereinafter referred to as the Act, by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shimla, stands acquitted of the said offence vide the impugned judgment dated 7 -1 -1991.
(2.)BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the present case are these. On 27 -4 -1988 Food Inspectors Shri S.N. Sharma visited the shop of the Respondent at Alige Mount Building, Jakhu when the Respondent was found having four kilograms of cow's milk contained in a tin for sale to the general public The Food Inspector after disclosing his identity and expressing the desire to purchase the milk for the purpose of analysis, purchased 7.0 mlts, of cow's milk from the Respondent on payment of Rs. 4 50 P. vide receipt Ext. PB in the presence of S/Shri Karam Chand and Sham Lal. The sample of milk so purchased was divided into three equal parts in three neat, dry and clean bottles and after adding formaline as preservative thereto, said bottles were properly labelled, fastened, wrapped, corked and sealed. One of the bottle containing the sample was sent to the Public Analyst and the same was found to be adulterated for being deficient in milk fats by 28 5% and milk solid not fats by 42% After obtaining the requisite written sanction for prosecution of the Respondent, the necessary complaint for the prosecution of the Respondent for the offence under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was made before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate.
The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate upon consideration of the material placed before him came to the conclusion that there was a non -compliance of the provisions of Section 13(2) of the Act and that the milk was not proved to have been made homogeneous before taking the sample The learned Magistrate, accordingly, vide the impugned judgment acquitted the Respondent of the offence charged against him, as aforesaid,

(3.)FEELING aggrieved, the State has come up in appeal before this Court after obtaining the requisite leave, assailing the acquittal of the Respondent of the offence charged against him.
I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case.

Section 13(2) of the Act, provides:

13(2) On receipt of the report of the result of the analysis under Sub -section (1) to the effect that the article of food is adulterated the Local (Health) Authority shall, after institution of prosecution against persons from whom the sample of the article of food was taken and the person, if any, whose name, address and other particulars have been disclosed under Section 14 -A, forward, in such manner as may be prescribed, a copy of the report of the result of the analysis to such person or persons, as the case may be, informing such person or persons that if it is so desired, either or both of them may make an application to the Court within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of the copy of the report to get the sample of the article of food kept by the Local (Health Authority analysed by the Central Food Laboratory.

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