A.D.Koshal, J. - (1.) This is an appeal by the Municipal Committee, Amritsar, against the judgment, dated the 9th of Dec., 1970, of Shri Avtar Singh Gill, Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, acquitting the respondent of offences under clauses (i) and (ii) of section 16(1) (a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, of which he had been convicted by Shri G.L. Chopra, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Amritsar, who had sentenced him in consequence to rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 1,000.00 on the first count and to imprisonment till rising of the court as well as a fine of Rs. 200.00on the second, the sentences in default of payment of fine being rigorous imprisonment for four months and rigorous imprisonment for a month respectively.
(2.) The prosecution case may be stated thus : On the 30th of May, 1969, at about 6.45 A.M., Food Inspector, Sohan Lal (P.W. 1), found the respondent sitting on a bench in Chowk Nimak Mandi, Amritsar and selling milk. On the Food Inspector's enquiry the respondent stated that the commodity being sold by him was cow's milk. Then the Food Inspector disclosed his identity and purchased from the respondent 660 millilitres of cow's milk, after stirring the bulk, against the payment of fifty paise for which receipt Exhibit P.B. was issued by the respondent. The milk so obtained by the Food Inspector was divided by him into three equal parts, each one of which was transferred into a clean dry bottle. Eighteen drops of formalin were added as preservative to each of the bottle before they were stoppered, labelled, wrapped and sealed. One of the bottles was retained by the Food Inspector, another was handed over to the respondent and the third was sent to the Public Analyst whose report Exhibit P.F. states that the percentages of milk fats and non-fatty solids in the milk in the bottle sent to him were 3.6 and 8.2 respectively. The prescribed minimum percentages of the two ingredients being 4.0 and 8.5 respectively, the respondent had been guilty of an offence under clause (i) aforesaid. He was also found to be selling milk without a licence and, therefore, had committed an offence under clause (ii) above mentioned.
(3.) In support of its case the prosecution examined two witnesses at the trial. They were Food Inspector, Sohan Lal (P.W. 1) and Parbhat Kumar, a sweetmeat vendor of Nimak Mandi, Amritsar (P.W. 2), who claimed to have been present when the Food Inspector took the sample of milk from the respondent. According to both these witnesses, Ram Lal (a prosecution witness who was given up at the trial as having been won over) was also present when the sample was secured.;