Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 970 (MP)

State of M. P. v. Raj Kishore Garg

2007-09-06

A.P.SHRIVASTAVA

body2007
Judgment ( 1. ) THE appellant/state has preferred this appeal under Section 378 of Cr. P. C. against the judgment of acquittal, dated 2nd december, 1999 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Morena (M. P.) in criminal Case No. 461/97, by which the respondents have been acquitted of the charge under Section 7 (1) read with Section 16 (1) (a)- (i) of the prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter it shall be referredto as the Act ). ( 2. ) BEING aggrieved by the order of acquittal, the appeal has been filed by the appellant/state. ( 3. ) IN nutshell, the story of the prosecution is that on getting information, food Inspector R. S. Chauhan (P. W. I) went to Raju Ice Factory, A. B. Road, morena on 29. 1. 97 for inspection that the respondents were selling adulterated milk. The sample of 750 gram ml. Ltr. , milk was purchased by giving rs. 7. 50/ -. It was divided into three equal parts of 250 gram each and were kept in three clean bottles by adding 20-20 drops of formalene out of which one part was sent for chemical examination and other two parts were kept at local health authority. Before that a notice under Form No. 6 was given to the respondents which is Ex. P. 3 and milk was purchased by Food Inspector r. S. Chauhan (P. W. 1 ). The sample of milk was sealed and then sent to public Analyst, State Food Laboratory, Bhopal. The first sample which was sent did not contain the impression of seal. Therefore, the second sample was sent. The report of Public Analyst is related to the second sample. ( 4. ) COUNSEL for the appellant/state submits that the learned trial Court has wrongly acquitted the respondents because in the statement of Food inspector R. S. Chauhan (P. W. 1 ). It has come out that milk was made homogeneous before taking the sample and there is compliance of Section 13 (2) of the Act. ( 5. ) NOBODY appeared on behalf of respondents. ( 6. ) I have perused the entire evidence on record. The learned trial Court acquitted the respondents on two grounds which are mentioned in paras 14 and 16 of the judgment. The first ground of acquittal is that in Panchanama ex. P. 6, it is not mentioned that the milk was made homegeneous. ( 6. ) I have perused the entire evidence on record. The learned trial Court acquitted the respondents on two grounds which are mentioned in paras 14 and 16 of the judgment. The first ground of acquittal is that in Panchanama ex. P. 6, it is not mentioned that the milk was made homegeneous. Therefore, the oral testomony of Food Inspector R. S. Chauhan (P. W. 1) is not sufficient. Hence, the learned trial Court has held that there is non-compliance of section 13 (2) of Act and rule 9 (a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration rules. Similarly, after filing the charge-sheet, on 2. 6. 97 a notice was given to the respondents under Section 13 (2) of the Act. No document has been proved in this regard. The sample was taken on 29. 1. 97 while the respondents were given notice on 2. 6. 97 after a gap of about 5 months. Therefore, there is no conclusive evidence regarding the compliance of section 13 (2) of the Act. Therefore, the respondents were given benefit of doubt and acquitted by learned trial Court. ( 7. ) AFTER perusal of record, it is found that there is no perversity in the finding recorded by learned trial Court and the acquittal is based on legal evidence. This is an appeal against acquittal and it is a settled view when two views are possible, one which favours the accused should be adopted. Therefore, there is no scope for any interference. The appeal against acquittal filed by the appellant/state is dismissed accordingly.