G.D. Srivastava, J. - (1.) This appeal has been preferred by the Food Inspector against on order of acquittal passed by Sri Nathoo Lal Magistrate First Class, Meerut' The prosecution case was that the Food Inspector Sri I.P. Tyagi saw the appellant taking milk on his cycle for sale. He purchased 660 m.m. of milk and the same was sealed in three phials in accordance with the rules and the opposite party No. 2 Krishna was informed that this sample would be sent to public analyst. The report of the public analyst was received and it was found that the sample contained fat 3.7 per cent and non-fatty solids 5.4 per cent. Thus the sample was deficient in fat contents by about 38 per cent and also deficient in non-fatty solids by about 40 per cent. On the basis of this report a complaint was filed against the opposite party on 3rd December 1970. The Magistrate suspected that there was some interpolation in the percentage of deficiency as noted in the complaint.He held that the testimony of P.W. 2 was not reliable and he also disbelieved the food inspector. In view of these conclusions, he passed an order of acquittal.
(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and also the learned counsel for the opposite party. In my opinion, the reasoning of the Magistrate is perverse. He was led away by some apparent interpolations in the complaint. He noted that the deficiency in fat contents was mentioned in the complaint as 3.8 per cent. Unnecessary emphasis has been Laid on this apparent mistake in the complaint. The Magistrate should have paid attention to the report of the public analyst which in fact shows the real position so far as the purity of the milk is concerned. In that report, it is clearly mentioned that the milk had 3.7 per cent fat and 5.4 per cent non-fatty solids. Thus the milk was deficient in fat contents and also in non-fatty solids when compared with the standard of fat and non-fatty solids as prescribed by the relevant rules. A perusal of those rules will therefore show that there was deficiency of about 40 per cent in non-fatty solids and 38 per cent in fat. Thus the report of the public analyst conclusively proves that the milk was adulterated. So far as the non-fatty solids are concerned, the judgment of the Magistrate is absolutely silent. The complaint is not a substantive piece of evidence and it was wrong to base any conclusion on any apparent or suspected interpolation in the complaint. It was not the case of the opposite party no 2 that the food inspector had any motive to falsely implicate him and no personal grudge was suggested to him. The reason for disbelieving P.W. 2 is also not very convincing. In my opinion, the statement of the food Inspector alone was sufficient to prove the guilt. The finding of acquittal recorded by the Magistrate is against the record and is based on mis-appreciation of evidence. For these reasons, the appeal should succeed. I, however, feel that because the matter is already more than six years old, it will not be proper to impose a sentence of imprisonment and a sentence of of fine alone will meet the ends of justice.
(3.) In the result, the appeal is allowed, the order of acquittal is hereby set aside. The opposite party is convicted under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and he is ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 250/-, in default to undergo R.I. for two months. The fine should be paid within a month from the date of receipt of record by the court concerned. Appeal allowed.;