Decided on July 21,1965

BECHAN Appellant


- (1.)THIS is a revision against the conviction of the applicant for a second offence under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.
(2.)BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that on 9-84962 at about 9. 30a. M. , Bechan applicant was found in Mohalla Mutthiganj Allahabad, going with two canisters of milk. On demand being made by the Food Inspector he sold 700 grams of milk to him and received a sum of 37 np. towards its price. The fact of selling the milk and receiving its price was noted in the register of the Inspector which was duly signed by the applicant. The sample was sent to the Public Analyst who, in his report dated 12-9-1962 stated that the sample was deficient in non-fatty solid content by about 28 per cent. The applicant contested the matter on a variety of grounds which were all rejected by the trying Magistrate who convicted the applicant under Section 7/16 of the Act and, this being the second offence, sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default of payment of fine to a further rigorous imprisonment for six months. On appeal the learned Sessions Judge maintained the conviction and sentence of the applicant; hence this revision.
(3.)BEFORE me the learned counsel for the applicant has raised three main grounds-- (1) that the report of the Public Analyst dated 12-91962 (Ex. ka3) states that he had caused to be analysed the sample of milk in question. The argument of the applicant's learned counsel is that there was nothing to indicate that the actual analysis was done by a qualified person nor was there anything to show that the analysis was done under the supervision of the Public Analyst (Dr. R. S. Srivastava ). There can be no speck of doubt that the authority and authenticity of the report of the Public Analyst depend upon the presumption that the requisite analysis has been done either by the Public Analyst himself who is a highly qualified person in his branch or by some of his assistant, who is equally or at least very well qualified to do the same. Accordingly at the request of the applicant's counsel I had required me Public Analyst to answer the following questions:--
Q. 1. Through whom did you cause the actual analysis of the sample in question done? What are his qualifications and experience? Q. 2. Did you supervise the analysis in question?


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