Decided on May 22,1982

Municipal Council, Jammu Appellant
Gh Ali Respondents


- (1.) AFTER obtaining special leave from this court by its order dated: i5 -3 -1983, this acquittal appeal has been preferred by the Municipal Council, Jammu; "here -in -after referred to as the complainant" against the order of acquittal to have been passed by learned Special Municipal Magistrate. Jammu, dated: 26 -12 -1988, whereby the respondent Ghulam Ali here -in after referred to as the accused" was acquitted of an offence Under Section1 4/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1974, "herein -after called the Act" for the learned trial Magistrate had observed that the report of the public Analyst was not furnished to the accused as envisaged under the provisions of Section 13 (2) of the Act, enabling him to move the court within period of ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of the report, to get the sample of milk seized from the accused and lying with the Local Health Authority, analysed by the Central Food Laboratory, if so desired by him.
(2.) THE prosecution case shortly relates that the Food Inspector Dharma Pal Anand purchased a sample of milk from the accused near Shahidi Chowk, Jammu, while he had brought milk for sale, according to the procedure prescribed by law, after he disclosed his identity to the accused. He purchased 750 grams of milk for Rs. 1. 50 for analysis, and put it into three dry and clean bottles and then sealed the same, and sent one scaled bottle to the Public Analyst, Jammu by hand ana retained two sealed bottles of sample of milk with the Local Health Authority.
(3.) AFTER the report of the public Analyst was received and the sample of milk so purchased from the accused was found adulterated, the accused was prosecuted in the Court of Special Municipal Magistrate Jammu. The accused was tried in accordance with law by the said Magistrate, and, on completion of the trial, the trial court acquitted the accused on the ground that the prosecution had not complied with the provisions of Section 13 (2) of the Act, and, therefore, found that no case was made against the accused and acquitted him. Aggrieved of the said order, the complainant preferred this acquittal appeal On the ground the that Food Inspector appointed under the Act, for the local area of the Municipality Jammu, took sample of milk from the accused on 1.91978 and the same was found adulterated, by the Public Analyst, Jammu, vide report No : 197/276 dated : 30 -9 -1978. That after obtaining sanction from Local Health Authority, prosecution Under Section 4/16 of the Act was launched against the accused in the court of Special Municipal Magistrate, Jammu. That the Local Health Authority after launching the prosecution on 17 -11 -1978 sent a copy of the report to the accused along -with intimation under No : 1706 dated: 21 -11 -1978 The said registered letter was received back by the Local Health Authority un -delivered with, the report of the postman dated: 30 -11 -1978 that the accused was not found in his home. In the meanwhile, the accused had put in his appearance in the Court, so, the un -delivered registered envelope was sent to the Court by the Local Health Authority for giving it to the accused. The undelivered registered letter was delivered to the accused on 27 -12 -1978 for availing of the right, if so desired as provided Under Section 13 (2) of the Act. This fact is borne out from the order of the court dated : 27 -12 1978 According to the prosecution, the provisions of Section 13 (3) of the Act was fully complied with, and the trial court has mis -understood the said provision, and has acquitted the accused That the order of acquittal is wrong on facts and law, and could not sustain.;

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