Research › Browse › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

1994 DIGILAW 514 (MP)

Narmada v. State of M. P.

1994-07-22

N.P.SINGH

body1994
ORDER N.P. Singh, J. 1. This revision application is directed against the judgment of conviction and order dated 18.1.1994 passed by the IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in Criminal Appeal No. 61 of 1992, whereby he dismissed the appeal affirming the conviction and sentence of the applicant as passed by the trial Magistrate. 2. On 9.8.1991 the complainant Food Inspector Hardayal Dubey (PW-1) purchased 600 ml. of goat milk from the applicant for public analyst after notice and a proper receipt, Ex.P-5, and sent a sample to the Public Analyst for report. The Public Analyst vide his report, Ex.P-10, found that the sample of milk contained 3% fat and 7.1% solid non fat and the same was not conformed to the prescribed standard of non solid fat to 9.0%. The complainant after obtaining the sanction for prosecution, Ex.P-11, filed prosecution report against the applicant before Special Judicial Magistrate, Jabalpur. The learned Special Judicial Magistrate on consideration of the evidence convicted the applicant under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with section 7(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to undergo S.I. for further two months. 3. Shri R.D. Gambhir, learned counsel for the applicant, has contended that no standard of purity of goat milk is laid down by the Government in the State of Madhya Pradesh. The sample of milk, therefore, could not be adjudged as adulterated. The provisions of Rules 17 and 18 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 were not complied with by the complainant Food Inspector. Besides this infirmity the applicant was also prejudiced by the rejection of his application filed under Section 243 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to cross examine the Public Analyst as also by the refusal to examine the Local Health Authority. 4. The contention of Shri Gambhir that no standard of purity of goat milk is prescribed under the rules framed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, is fallacious. In Apendix B Item No. A.11.01.11, of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, the standards of purity for different classes of milk are laid down in the table. As per the table the standard of purify of goat milk in the State of Madhya Pradesh, is 3.0% fat and 9.0% solid non fat. In Apendix B Item No. A.11.01.11, of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, the standards of purity for different classes of milk are laid down in the table. As per the table the standard of purify of goat milk in the State of Madhya Pradesh, is 3.0% fat and 9.0% solid non fat. It is obvious from the Analyst report Ex.P-10, that fat contained found in the sample milk was to the prescribed standard and non solid fat contained was below the prescribed standard. In this connection it is well settled that if the fat content in the milk sold is found to the prescribed that leads to an inference that no water is added to the milk and if the non solid fat content is found below the prescribed standard that warrants the inference that either the cow in question was not given a proper feeding or that the report of the Public Analyst was erroneous. Reference may be made in the case of Sultan Shah Vs. State of U.P. 1973 Cri.LJ. 1413. 5. As regards the non-compliance of Rules 17 and 18 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 Shri Gambhir contended that the sealed container of the sample was not sent to the Public Analyst in a sealed packet and copy of the memorandum and specimen impression of the seal used to seal the packet was not sent to the Public Analyst in a sealed packet separately. The compliance of Rules 17 and 18 was mandatory. Reliance was also placed in the case of State of Maharashra Vs. Raj Karan (1989 AIP AJ 12). There is force in the contention of Shri Gambhir. 6. There is nothing in the evidence of the complainant Food Inspector (PW-1) that he complied with the provisions of Rules 17 and 18 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. The copy of the memorandum and specimen impression of the seal used was not sent to the Public Analyst in a sealed packet separately. The compliance of the provisions of Rules 17 and 18 were mandatory. The non compliance of the provisions of these rules has resulted in miscarriage of justice to the applicant. 7. The apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra (supra) has held when there is a non-compliance of provisions of Rules 17 and 18, the prosecution is to fail. 8. The non compliance of the provisions of these rules has resulted in miscarriage of justice to the applicant. 7. The apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra (supra) has held when there is a non-compliance of provisions of Rules 17 and 18, the prosecution is to fail. 8. Besides this the prejudice was also caused to the applicant by the rejection of his application filed under Section 243 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to cross examine the Public Analyst as also by the refusal to examine the local health authority. 9. For the reasons mentioned aforesaid, the conviction and sentence of the applicant cannot be sustained. Accordingly they are set aside and in the result the revision application is allowed. Application dismissed