Onkar Singh, J. - (1.) This is an appeal by the Municipal Medical Officer of Health, Municipality of Faizabad, against the order of acquittal passed by the Sessions Judge, Faizabad, allowing the appeal of the respondent against his conviction under section 7 read with section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.
(2.) The facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows : on 27-9-1969 at about 9.00 A.M. in mohalla Sadatganj within the Faizabad Municipality the respondent, who' had buffalo milk for sale on Pheri at the rate of Re. 1 /-per liter in two cans on his cycle, was checked by P.W. 1 Sri Ravindra Kumar Gupta, Food Inspector, in the presence of two witnesses Sri Iqbal Mirza and Tara Chand. P.W. 1 Sri Ravindra Kumar Gupta purchased from the respondent a sample for analysis 750 cms. of that milk on payment of 75 paise after serving the required notice in form VI. Ext. Ka. 1 and Ext. Ka. 2 is its duplicate which bears the signature of the respondent. After adding the required quantity of preservative the said milk was divided into three bottles which were wrapped, labelled and sealed according to law. One of these bottles handed over to the respondent and Ext. Ka. 3 a receipt of having received the price and the sealed bottle was obtained from the respondent. This receipt also bears the signatures of the respondent and the witnesses. One of the sealed sample bottles was sent to the Public Analyst, U.P., who reported after analysis that the sample was deficient in fat by about 55% and was also deficient in not-fatty solid content by about 44% and hence it was adulterated. On receipt of the report of the Public Analyst, the prosecution of the respondent was launched vide Ext. Ka. 6.
(3.) The respondent pleaded innocence and denied the above allegations and stated that he did not sell milk. On the alleged date and place he was carrying milk to a sick man. He, however, admitted that the Food Inspector took the sample of milk from him and having complied with the formalities required under law he gave one bottle of the sample to him but added that he did not give any receipt in lieu of the money received to the Food Inspector. He, however, admitted that he has signed the said receipt without knowing its contents.;