State of H.P v. Peer Mohammad

The Hon(cid:146)ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1. No. For the appellant : Mr. V.K. Verma, Additional Advocate General. For the respondent Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma, Advocate. Rajiv Sharma, J. The respondent was prosecuted in criminal case No. 6-III 1996 for offence punishable under section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1951 in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hamirpur, H.P. and was acquitted on 30.10.2000. The State has filed this appeal against the acquittal of the respondent. The brief facts as can be gathered from the judgment of the trial court are that on 1.7.1995, Food Inspector, Shri K.S. Verma intercepted accused Peer Mohammad near Dev Pal Chowk, Hamirpur while carrying 8 kgs of cow milk in an iron can for sale to the general public and human consumption. The Food Inspector after disclosing his identity to the accused purchased 750 mls. milk out of can after stirring the whole quantity of milk.

The sample according to the Food Inspector was divided in 3 equal parts after adding 20 drops of formalin in each bottle as 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 preservative. One part of the sample along with form VII was sent to the Public Analyst Kandaghat in a sealed packet through registered parcel and a memo VII bearing seal impression so used was sent to the Public Analyst in a sealed packet by registered post separately and remaining two parts of the sample along with memo form VII in duplicate were deposited with the Local Health Authority, Hamirpur. The complaint was filed against the accused with intimation to the Local Health Authority, Hamirpur. The notice of acquisition for offence under section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 was put against the accused. The prosecution to prove its case has examined 5 witnesses in all.

The accused was examined under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The trial court acquitted the accused on 30.10.2000 The learned Additional Advocate General had strenuously argued that the judgment dated 30.10.2000 is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma, Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent-accused had supported the judgment dated 30.10.2000. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. PW-1 K.S. Verma has deposed that on 1.7.1996 the accused was intercepted with a can containing 8 kgs of cow milk for sale at Dev Pal Chowk, Hamirpur. He has further deposed that milk in the container was stirred out of which 750 mls. milk was purchased against price of Rs. 6/- vide receipt Ex.P-2. The milk was divided and put into three bottles equally after adding 20 drops of formalin. The signatures of the accused and Sh.

Harbans Lal were taken including PW-3 Deen Mohammad. He has further deposed that one sample was sent to the Public Analyst and two parts of the sample along with 2 copies of memo VII were deposited with Local Health Authority, Hamirpur. PW-2 Sh. Harbans Lal has 3 deposed that about 2 ‰ years back, accused brought milk to Hamirpur, who was summoned by the Food Inspector to his shop and the sample was taken which was put in 3 bottles after adding some medicine and these bottles were sealed and another person was present on the spot. PW-3 Deen Mohammad was declared hostile. PW-4 Jagan Nath is a formal witness. He has stated that he had taken the second part of the sample to the Public Analyst Kandaghat since the earlier sample was found broken. PW-5 Daljit Singh, Junior Assistant in the office of Chief Medical Officer has deposed that after intimation of filing the complaint by the Food Inspector, notice along with copy of report of Public Analyst was the accused through registered AD vide Ex.PW-5-A, acknowledgement Ex.PW-5/B and postal receipt is ExPW-5/C. PW-2 Harbans Lal has not supported the case of prosecution.

He was not aware how much milk was taken by the Food Inspector though the milk was stirred and was put into sample bottles according to him. He could not disclose the name of the other persons present at that time on the spot. He has stated that the milk was stirred in a jug in his hotel, but PW-1 has stated that the milk was stirred in the can itself. PW-2 and PW-3 i.e. Harbans Lal and Deen Mohammad are running Halwai shops. The Food Inspector should have associated some independent witnesses instead of associating the Halwai at the time of lifting the sample as the halwais sell milk and milk products and they are always under the influence of Food Inspector. The version of PW-1 i.e. Food Inspector is at variance with the independent witnesses i.e. Harbans Lal and Deen Mohammad. There is variance in the reports of the Public Analyst and the Director Central Food Laboratory. The reasons for different conclusions of these authorities are that the milk was not stirred to make it homogenous.

Moreover, there is a contradiction in the manner in which the sample was taken. The trial court 4 on the basis of the correct appreciation of the evidence has rightly acquitted the respondent-accused. In view of the observations made hereinabove, this Court will not interfere in the well reasoned judgment of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hamirpur dated 30.10.2000 acquitting the respondent. The result of the above discussion is that there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. The bail bonds furnished by the accused are discharged. January 3, 2008 *Awasthi* ( Rajiv Sharma), Judge