Research › Browse › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

1965 DIGILAW 332 (ALL)

State of U. P. v. Raja Ram

1965-09-03

G.B.CAPOOR, HGP TRIPATHI

body1965
JUDGMENT HGP Tripathi, J. - This appeal by the State of Uttar Pradesh is directed against an order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge of Orai in Criminal Appeal No. 34 of 1963. The Respondent was prosecuted u/s 16 read with Section 7(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act for selling adulterated milk on 18.7.1962 within the municipal limits of Orai. A sample of his milk was taken by the Food Inspector Sri Basant Singh (P.W. 1) according to the rules and a part of it was sent to the Public Analyst for his analysis and report. The report of the Public Analyst shows that the sample was found deficient in non fatty solids contents by about 26%. The trial ma-gistrate on the basis of evidence held the charges established against the Respondent and convicted and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 6700/- or to undergo thirty days rigorous imprisonment in its default. 2. On appeal the learned Sessions Judge concurred with the findings of the trial court that the Respondent was found selling milk in the town of Orai and that sample of that milk was obtained by the Food Inspector on payment of price. He was however, of opinion that as the report of the Public Analyst was not in accordance with the prescribed form No. III it was inadmissible in evidence and therefore the charge was not proved against the Respondent. Accordingly he allowed the appeal and acquitted him. 3. We have heard the learned Counsel for the Respondent. 4. The learned Sessions Judge fell in an error when he held that the report of the Public Analyst was not in the form prescribed under the rules. 5. Rule 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules inter alia provides that: (1).... (2) "The Public Analyst shall cause to be analysed such samples of articles of food as may be sent to him by Inspector or by any other person under the Act". (3) After the analysis has been completed he shall forthwith supply to the person concerned a report in Form III of the result of such analysis. 6. (2) "The Public Analyst shall cause to be analysed such samples of articles of food as may be sent to him by Inspector or by any other person under the Act". (3) After the analysis has been completed he shall forthwith supply to the person concerned a report in Form III of the result of such analysis. 6. Form No. III as it originally stood was amended by the Government of India's notification published in the U.P. Government Gazette dated June 11,1962, and the words "I have analysed the aforementioned sample" were substituted by the words "I have caused to be analysed the aforementioned sample". This amendment in the form was overlooked by the learned Sessions Judge when he held that the report of the Public Analyst was not in the form prescribed under the rules. 7. As regards the admissibility of the report of the Public Analyst given in this form the question is concluded by a Division Bench decision of this Court, with which we are in respectful agreement, in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Raghu Nandan Singh (1) (l965 AWR 14). Thus it most be held that the report submitted by the Public Analyst was in accordance with law and the learned Sessions Judge was wrong in holding it otherwise. 8. On facts we agree with the Concurrent findings of the courts below that the Respondent was found selling milk within the municipal limits of Orai. The sample of the milk when analysed by the Public Analyst was found deficient in non fatty solids. 9. Learned Counsel for the Respondent raised an ingenious argument that as sample of milk was taken on the 18th of July, 1962, at about 8 a.m. it could not have remained in a proper condition for analysis which must have been conducted on the 9th day of August, 1962, which is the date of the report of the Public Analyst. Learned Counsel in this connection invited our attention to a single Judge decision of the Nagpur High Court reported in Dattappa v. Buldana Municipalities (2) (AIR 1951 Nag. 191). That case in our opinion is distinguishable on facts. In that case there was nothing to show that when the sample was analysed no change had taken place in its constituents. Learned Counsel in this connection invited our attention to a single Judge decision of the Nagpur High Court reported in Dattappa v. Buldana Municipalities (2) (AIR 1951 Nag. 191). That case in our opinion is distinguishable on facts. In that case there was nothing to show that when the sample was analysed no change had taken place in its constituents. In the instant case, however, the report of the Public Analyst clearly mentions that no change had taken place in the constituents of milk which could have interfered with his analysis. Food Inspector (sic) (P.W. 1) has stated that a pres(sic) formalin in the requisite qu(sic) mixed with the milk when its (sic) was obtained and a part of the (sic) was given to the Respondent as provided under the Act. There is (sic) therefore to doubt the report of Public Analyst that when the (sic) was analysed its constituents had (sic) undergone any change. In any (sic) if the Respondent intended to ch(sic) the report of the Public Analyst (sic) his ground it was open to him to (sic) his part of the sample for being (sic) by the Director of the General (sic) Laboratory as provided under the (sic). This argument in our (sic) rejected. 10. As was have held (sic) port of the Public Analyst is (sic) in evidence it must be held (sic) Respondent had committed (sic) punishable u/s 16 read with Section 7(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 11. Accordingly we allow the appeal, set aside the order of the learned Sessions Judge and convict the Respondent u/s 16 read with Section 7(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentence him to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-. In default of payment of fine the Respondent will undergo (sic) month's simple imprisonment.