M.C. Jain, J. - (1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 2-7-1973, passed by the Magistrate, First Class, Sri Ganganagar whereby the respondent No. 1 was acquitted of the offence under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').
(2.) The prosecution case, in brief, is that the Food Inspector Shri Veer Singh (P.W. 1) checked the respondent No. 1 on 22-1-69 at about 6.15 a.m., when he was carrying drums of milk on his cycle. The respondent No. 1 was engaged in selling of milk. The Food Inspector purchased 660 ml. of milk for 0.75 p. in the presence of the 'motbirs' Gurcharan Singh and Roop Singh for analysis. The milk was put into three clean, dry bottles in equal quantity and 18 drops of formalin were added in each bottle and thereafter all the three bottles were duly packed and sealed. All the formalities were completed in the presence of the 'motbirs'. Receipt Ex. P/I was obtained from the accused and form No. VI Ex. P/3 and Panchanama Ex. P/3 were also prepared. All these documents were got attested from the witnesses. One of the sample bottles was delivered to the accused and his receipt was obtained. One sample bottle was sent to the Public Analyst, Bikaner, for analysis, through registered post. Specimen seal impression along with Form No. VII Ex. P/4 were also sent by the registered post to the Public Analyst. Thereafter the report of the Public Analyst was received and it was found that the sample of milk was adulterated by reason of its containing about 10% of added water. Thereupon consent Ex. P/8 was issued by the Administrator empowering the Food Inspector to prosecute the accused. The Food Inspector submitted a complaint. The learned Magistrate tried the accused and acquitted him on the grounds that compliance of section 10(7), rule 20 and rule 9(j) were not made out and further there was delay in prosecution. The Municipal Council dissatisfied with the judgment of acquittal, has preferred this appeal after obtaining leave of appeal.
(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the accused-respondent No. 1 and perused the record of the case.;