CITY OF NAGPUR CORPORATION Vs. SUKHANANDAN MAHABIR AHIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question referred to this Division Bench in these three appeals is:

(2.) BEFORE we proceed to answer this question it is necessary to mention a few facts. The accused in these three cases were all prosecuted for an offence punishable under Section 7 (i) read with, Section 16 (1) (a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 1954. So far as the accused in the first case is concerned cow's milk was purchased from him for analysis on 20-3-1968 on payment of the necessary price by the Food Inspector of the Municipal Corporation of Nagpur. As soon as the milk was purchased, it was divided into three portions and each portion was poured in a bottle and the bottles were sealed on the same day. One of the bottles was given to the accused, the other was retained by the Food Inspector for being produced in Court, and the third was sent for analysis on that very day. The analysis was made by the Public Analyst on the same day. So far as the accused in the second case is concerned, the Food Inspector purchased cow's milk from him on 24-2-1968 and the same procedure was followed in respect of this milk also. One of the samples was sent for analysis on that very day, and the analysis was made by the Public Analyst on the same day. So far as the accused in the third case is concerned, cow's milk was purchased from him on 15-5-1968, and after following the same procedure one of the three samples was sent for analysis on the same day and the same was analysed on that very day. In each case the sample analysed consisted of 220 ml of cow's milk. In the first case, the Public Analyst found that the sample contained 57 % of extraneously added water. The finding in the second case was that the sample in that case contained 42. 1% of extraneously added water. In the third case, it was found that the sample contained 7. 7% of extraneously added water. All the three accused were accordingly prosecuted for an offence punishable under Section 7 (i) read with section 16 (1) (a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. All the three accused were acquitted by tile learned Magistrate and the order of acquittal in each case was challenged by the Municipal Corporation of Nagpur in these three appeals.

(3.) ONE of the points urged in this Court was that the provisions of rule 20 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, were mandatory, and since there was no strict compliance with those provisions in these three cases, the accused were entitled to an acquittal. These three appeals were heard by my. learned Brother, and he felt that in view of the conflicting decisions on this point, it was necessary that a Division Bench of this Court should decide whether the provisions of rule 20 are mandatory and whether the accused were entitled to an acquittal merely for non-compliance with the provisions of this rule even when the reports of the Public Analyst show that the sample in each case was adulterated. That is why a reference has been made to this Bench.