M.L. Jain, J. - (1.) This appeal is directed against the judgement of the learned Municipal Magistrate, First Class, Jaipur City (West) dated August 23,1971, by which he has acquitted the respondent of the offence under Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act .1954. No one appears on behalf of the respondent. I have heard the arguments of Mr. Keshote, the learned advocate of the Municipal Council, Jaipur and seen the record of the case.
(2.) The facts of the case are that on November 4, 1967 at 10.00 a.m., Food Inspector Prem Chand PW. 1 checked the container of milk of respondent Ghasilal who was taking it for sale. He was checked on the Mirza Ismail Road near the shop of Liberty Sports, Jaipur, The container did not bear any indication of the animal of which the milk was he purchased a sample of milk from him and sent the same in proper manner for chemical examination. The said examination disclosed the following analysis JUDGEMENT_45_LAWS(RAJ)1_19771.html The sample was found to be adulterated because it contained 10 per cent of added water.
(3.) The learned Magistrate found that the Food Inspector had taken the sample strictly in accordance with the rules, and did not contravene any of the Food Adulteration Act 1954, and in view of the opinion of the Public Analyst, he held that the milk which was purchased by the Food Inspector was adulterated one, but he acquitted the accused on the ground that he was deprived of his right under sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the said Act. The sample was purchased on November 4, 1967 and the complaint was lodged on March 27, 1968. The summons of the accused were given to the Food Inspector for service but failed to have them served till December 23, 1968. Thus, the accused was able to appear before the Court only 121/2 months after the sample from him was taken. It was not possible for the accused to know before he was summoned, that he was being prosecuted under the aforesaid Act and that he should have availed of his right under sub-Section (2) of Section 13 of the Act. Even though formaline was added to the milk, yet it was likely to have become unfit for analysis after the lapse of 10 months. Therefore, even if the accused had made an application for second analysis of the sample by the Central Food Laboratory, it would have been a fruitless action. Arguing thus, the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused of the offence of which he has charged with.;