M.L.JAIN, J. - (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the leaned Municipal Magistrate, Jaipur, dated 16 -10 -70 by which, he acquitted the respondent under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 No one appears on behalf of the respondent. I have beard Counsel for the appellant Stale and have looked into the record of the case.
(2.) THE facts are that on 11.8.66 at 7.00 a.m., Food Inspector Laxman Swaroop Goyal along with another Food Inspector Premchand checked the respondent Nathu near Hathroi on the Mirza Ismail Road in the city of Jaipur when he was carrying on his cycle milk for sale. He purchased a sample and divided it and placed the same into three bottles. He also put 16 drops of formaline in, each of the bottles. When one of the, bottles Was sent to the Public Analyst, for chemical examination, his report of the analysis was as follows, - Fat content. 4.1%. Solids non fat 6.01%. The opinion of the public analyst was that the sample of milk was adulterated by reason of it's Containing about 33% of added water. On being tried for, an offence under Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused on three ground : (i) that 16 drops of formalin was not a sufficient quantity, of the preservative to be added to the sample so as to prevent it from decomposition, (ii) the statement of the Food Inspector Laxman Swaroop was not sufficient to inspire confidence in the mind of the learned Magistrate and (iii) the sample was purchased on 11 -6 -66 the report of of Public Analyst dated 29 -6 -66 and the complaint was lodged on 7 -10 -66. The accused could not be served for a long time and he was served only on 30.1.67 for the date of hearing namely, 9.2.67. Thus, the service on the accused was effected after eight months During this time, the sample should have decomposed and the accused was thus deprived of his valuable right under Sub -section (2) of Section 13 of the aforesaid Act of having the sample examined by the Central Food Laboratory.
(3.) THE Learned Counsel for the Municipal Council submitted that all the three grounds given by the learned Magistrate were contrary to the facts of the case and law applicable thereto. I have considered over his contentions and it appears to me that the learned Magistrate had certainly misdirected himself in the matter of assessment of the evidence and application of the relevant and law.;