STATE Vs. MST MEERA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE accused Mst. Meera, widow of Ganesh Rawal, was prosecuted for an offence under Section 16 (1) (a) read with Section 7 (1), Prevention of Pood Adulteration Act, 1954, in the Court of learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jalore. She was convicted under the aforesaid provisions of law and was, sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 51, in default; of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one week.

(2.) IT is alleged that on June 3, 1963, at about 6. 30 a. m. , Food Inspector Mohan Kishan, P. W. 2 had been on his usual round towards Surajpol gate, Jalore. He found Mat. Meera selling milk in the bazaar to the public. He gave a notice to Met. Meera in form No. VI for purchase of milk for the purpose of its test. He then bought milk worth annas sevan. He put that milk in three bottles, which duly sealed. One of those phials was given to Mst. Meera, the other was sent to the-Public Analyst, Jodhpur, for laboratory test, and the third one was retained by the Food Inspector; vide Ex. P. 4. The Public Analyst analysed the sample and declared the result, of his analysis as under: Fat contents 2. 1 per cent. Solid non-fat contents 6. 3 per cent. He was of the opinion that the sample was adulterated, as it did not conform to the prescribed standard of purity. He issued requisite certificate on August 8, 1963, and sent the same to the Food Inspector, Jalore. Thereafter, on October 31, 1968, a complaint was made on behalf of the State against the accused Mst. Meera for her prosecution under Section 16 (1) (a) read with Section 7 (1), Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, in the Court of learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jalore. The accused denied to have committed the offence. Her plea was that the Chairman, Municipal Board, Jalore, Shri Ugam See Modi's father was not on good terms with her because of certain litigation and, therefore, she was falsely implicated. She further said that the milk in question was not meant for sale. In support of its case the prosecution examined (1) Shri A. Bhattacharya, Public Analyst, Jodhpur; (2) Food Inspector Mohan Kishan, and (3) Motbir Vijai Raj. The accused did not produce any evidence in her defence. Eventually, the Court convicted and sentenced the accused, as aforesaid. On an appeal, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalore, acquitted the accused on March 31, 1965, on the grounds that:

(3.) AGGRIEVED against the above verdict, the State Government has filed the present appeal. Learned Deputy Government Advocate seriously challenged the findings of the first appellate Court. His contention is that the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalore, did not properly appreciate the prosecution evidence and his interference with the findings of the trial Court was uncalled for. He has further argued that the provisions of Section 10 (7) of the Act are not mandatory but only directory in nature and, therefore, the Court below went wrong in holding that the trial of the case was vitiated on that score. learned Counsel for the respondent supported the judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalore.