GARG, J. - (1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the State of Rajasthan against the judgment and order dated 31. 12. 86 passed by the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chittorgarh in Cr. Case No. 115/84 by which he acquitted the accused respondent for offence under Sec. 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.
(2.) THIS appeal arises in the following circumstances : (i) P. W. 1 Shankar Lal filed a complaint on 19. 3. 84 in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Chittorgarh alleging that on 4. 10. 83 while patroling the area near Bus-stand, Bhadsora, he saw accused respondent having milk and thereafter PW. 1 Shankar Lal, Food Inspector disclosed his identity to the accused respondent and asked him to give a sample of the milk found with him. The respondent agreed to give sample of the milk. The Food Inspector Shankar Lal (PW. 1) thereupon purchased 660 ml. milk from the respondent for consideration of Rs. 1. 60/- and divided it into 3 equal parts and filled each part in a dry and clean bottle after adding 18 drops of formalin thereto. The bottles containing samples were then corked and sealed properly in the presence of motbirs. The fard of taking sample was prepared and the same is Ex. P/3. One of the bottles was later on sent to public analyst, Udaipur for examination. The Public Analyst analysed the sample sent to him by the Food Inspector Shankar Lal (PW. 1) and found it adulterated as it did not conform to the standard of purity prescribed and it contained about 30% of added water. The report of the public analyst is Ex. P/5. Upon receipt of the report of the Public Analyst, the Food Inspector Shankar Lal (PW. 1) also obtained requisite sanction for prosecution of the respondent from the local authority and eventually filed the said complaint. After examination of PW. 1 Shankar Lal before charge, the learned trial Magistrate on 11. 4. 85 framed charges for offence under Sec. 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. During trial, as many as 4 witnesses have been produced on behalf of the prosecution and statement of accused respondent was recorded under Section 313 Cr. P. C. and 2 witnesses were examined in defence.
(3.) AFTER conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Magistrate acquitted the accused respondent through his judgment and order dated 31. 12. 86 on three grounds and one of the grounds was that when the sample was taken by P. W. 1 Shankar Lal, the accused respondent was not selling the milk and he was carrying the milk for the purpose of giving it to D. W. 1 Roshan Lal Mahajan. Aggrieved from the said Judgment and order, the present state appeal has been filed. In this appeal, it has been argued by the learned P. P. that the reasonings given by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate in his judgment dated 31. 12. 86 are erroneous one and thus, the appeal of the State be allowed. ;