PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Vs. MATHA SATYAM
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.)In C.C. No. 57 of 1967 on the file of the Judicial First class- Magistrate, Rajam, the Food Inspector, Rajam Panchayat Board filed a complaint against the accused alleging that on 24th June, 1967, the accused had brought two seers of buffalo milk to Sankara Vilas for sale, that the Food Inspector took a. sample of milk and gave 50 P. to the accused towards the price of the sample of the milk after observing all the prescribed formalities that on analysis the milk was found to be adulterated and that, therefore, the accused committed an offence punishable under section 16 (1) and (7) read with section 2 (1) (a) and (1) and rule 44 (b) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The accused denied having committed the offence. The learned Magistrate after full trial, acquitted the accused. The learned Public Proescutor filed this appeal against the acquittal. The prosecution examined two witnesses and their evidence is as follows :- P.W. 2 is the proprietor of Sankara Vilas Coffee Hotel. The accused is a milk vendor. He was selling milk to the hotel daily and on 24th June, 1967 at about 7-00 A.M. the accused brought milk to P.W. 2 for sale. Then the Food Inspector P.W.1 purchased half a litre of milk as sample from the accused for analysis and paid 50 P. to the accused. The latter received the amount and issued a receipt Exhibit P-1 which states as follows :-
"You have purchased from me 1/2 seer of buffalo milk on 24th June, 1967 at 7-00 A.M. near Kalipu Guruvulu's Hotel for sending the same to Hyderabad for purpose of analysis. As you have paid half a rupee towards the (cost) therefor, I am in receipt of the same."
(2.)It bears the thumb impression of the accused. Exhibit P-2 is the notice. Exhibit P-3 is another receipt signed by the accused in which he mentioned that P.W. 1 purchased half a seer of milk and after paying the price he filled it in three bottles corked and sealed them and gave one bottle to him. It is signed by P.W. 2 Exhibit P-4 is the mediator's report which was prepared by P.W. 1. the Food Inspector. It purports to contain the signature of P.W. 2 and one T. Ramakrishna Rao (not examined) who is also said to be the scribe of it and the words " mark of Yenduva Venkayya" who is the peon of P.W. 1. One of the sample bottles was duly analysed by the public analyst who sent a report, Exhibit P-6 to the effect that it contained only 11 per cent, of added water. When questioned, the accused stated as follows :- Question.-You have heard the evidence of P.W. 2 by name Surya Rao to the effect that you would be sell ing milk every day to the Sankar Vilas Hotel. What do you say ? Answer.-I have got one buffalo. I will sell milk to whoever purchases (from me). When questioned about the actual occurrence, he stated as follows :
"I was taking milk to my nephew, Chitti Appalaswamy on his requisition. On my way, P.W. 1 caught hold of me and took me to the office. He gave me 5oP. and served a notice on me. I was made to affix thumb impressions. One sample bottle was given to me. I was made t o affix my thumb impressions."
(3.)When questioned about the result of the analysis the accused stated as follows:- I did not mix water to it. He pleaded "Not guilty" to the charge against him under section 16 (1) (a) and (7) read with section 2 (1) (a) and (1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and rule 44 (b) and clause A-11 in Appendix B of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. He examined one defence witness, Chitti Appalaswamy whom the accused referred to above. He simply stated the he had asked the accused to supply him milk as he had relations on some personal obligations. When cross-examined, he stated that he did not know that the accusesd was selling milk or even what the accused does with the milk of his she-buffalo. The learned Magistrate, in his judgment referred to the contention of the accused that he never intended to sell milk and he was taking it free of cost to his nephew, D.W.1 But he did not discuss the evidence of D.W.1 or express any opinion as to whether it was reliable or not or conclude that the statement of the accused was true, but he held that the prosecution failed to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt for reasons mentioned by him in his judgment as follows :- (1) Purchase of milk by P.W. 1 for sampling in this case cannot be treated as a sale. (2) The only mediator that was present at the time of seizu re of sample of milk was under the influence of the Food Inspector, P.W. 1 and therefore, he is not disinterested and not independent. (3) The prosecution evidence is unreliable as there are corrections of date in Exhibits P-2 and P-4. Ground No.1:-The learned Public Proesecutor has relied on the decision of Chinnappa Reddy J., in C.A. No. 301 of 1958 dated soth January, 1968. In that Case the relevant facts were as follow :- The Food Inspector purchased a sample of milk for analysis from the accused and paid him the price for it and the milk on analysis was found to be adulterated. The accused pleaded that he was just conveying the milk to his landlord, D.W. 1 The learned Magistrate acquitted the accused holding that the milk belonged to his landlord and just when he was conveying the milk the Food Inspector came and took a sample from him. The learned Magistrate held that though a sale to the Food Inspector for analysis was a sale under section 2 (xiii) of the Act, such a sale was made under the compulsive authority of the Food Inspector and therefore, it was open to the accused to establish that he was not a milk vendor and that the milk was not intended for sale, and that the accused had proved such fact by showing that the milk belonged to his master, D.W. and that the accused was merely a carrier of the milk.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.