MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI Vs. RAM SARUP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal against acquittal was brought by special leave granted by the Punjab High Court on 12.8.1964. The appellant is the Municipal Corporation of Delhi while the respondent Ram Sarup is resident of a village within the jurisdiction of Police Station Mehrauli. He was proceeded against on a complaint filed against him by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi under section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 on the allegations that on 1.1.1962 at about 5 P.M. Shri B.K. Garg Food Inspector who was present in Hauz Khas Enclave found him coming on a cycle carrying three tins of milk. The Food Inspector after disclosing his identity and observing the necessary formalities purchased 24 once of milk for 19 paise vide receipt ex. P2. The milk was divided and filled in three empty bottles which after the addition of 16 drops of formalin into each, were duly sealed on the spot. One of the bottles was delivered to the accused and the other was sent to the Public Analyst. According to the Public Analyst's report Ex. P5. the milk was found to contain 0.3% fat and 8.40% non-fatty solids. The Public Analyst was of the opinion that the milk was misbranded as actually it was separated milk which had been wrongly declared as cow's milk.

(2.) The learned magistrate before whom the complaint was filed however came to the conclusion that the prosecution had failed to establish that the sample of milk taken from the accused was cow's milk. For coming to this conclusion, the learned magistrate was of the opinion that under section 10(3) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, the Food Inspector was required to pay the market-price for the sample taken by him for analysis. The Food Inspector had admitted that he was aware at the time that the market-price of cow's milk was 8 Annas per seer, but he did not even offer any explanation as to why he paid the lower price of 3 Annas only for 24 ounces of milk. This circumstance according to the learned magistrate, lent support to the defence set up by the accused that he had told the Inspector at the spot that it was separated milk and that he was taking it for his domestic use. Learned Magistrate also held that the only independent witness Dwarka Dass had supported the accused's version about his having told the Food Inspector that the milk in his possession was separated milk.

(3.) On behalf of the prosecution, it was contended before the learned Magistrate that the defence set up by the accused was false in as much as he had been found, according to the Food Inspector, to be in possession, of a receipt for a licence for, selling cow's milk and that that fact was mentioned by him in the memo (Ex. P.1.). Learned magistrate had however not attached any weight to this circumstance because in his opinion the mere possession of the receipt did not establish that the accused had been granted a licence for selling cow's milk or had deposited money for getting such licence, especially when this fact had been denied by him and the prosecution had neither produced the counter-foil of the said receipt nor made any request to summon any witness to prove that the receipt had any connection with the accused's application for grant of a licence.