The court held that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused sold adulterated milk, and that the accused was not prejudiced by the delay in prosecution or by the alleged non-compliance with Rules 20 and 22 of the Food Adulteration Rules.

1. - The State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal against the accused-respondent Umashankar resident or Bhilwara, who was acquitted by the First Class Magistrate, Bhilwara in Case No. 197/1970 by his order dated September 15, 1970 for the offence under Section 7 read with 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

2. The facts of the case according to the prosecution in brief are that on March 1, 1969 at about 7.15 a.m. Food Inspector Sardar Singh went to the shop of the accused Umashankar, who is a milk-vendor. A prescribed notice was given to the accused respondent and 666 ml. of milk was purchased from him, for which its price was paid to him. The purchased milk was divided into three equal portions and was filled in the bottles and 16 drops of formalin was added. The bottles were sealed and a Panchnama Ex. 2 to the same effect was prepared. One sealed bottle was sent to the Public Analyst at Jaipur for analysis along with the form No. 7 with the specimen seal impression, was also sent by the registered post to the Public Analyst. The Public Analyst examined and analysed the aforesaid sample sent to him and he found that this sample of milk was adulterated by the reason of its containing 27% of added water. This report is Ex. p/5. Sanction for prosecution was obtained and the accused was challenged to the Court of City Magistrate, Bhilwara and the case was later on transferred to the Court of First Class, Magistrate, Bhilwara.

3. Prosecution examined the Food Inspector, Sardar Singh P.W. I, Laxmi Chand P.W. 2 and Mohanlal P.W. 3 in support of its case. The respondent pleaded not guilty to the charge and examined the witnesses in his defence. The learned Magistrate held that the offence was not proved beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused by his judgment dated September 15, 1970.

4. I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused-respondent and have also gone through the record of the case.

5. It has been contended by the learned Public Prosecutor that the trial court has failed to appreciate the facts of the case and law. He contended that the conclusion arrived at by the trial court is not based on facts proved by the prosecution and so it has resulted in grave injustice. The learned Magistrate has given two reasons for giving the benefit of doubt to the accused-respondent. Firstly that the milk from which the sample was taken by the Food Inspector did not belong to the accused and secondly he has not considered the evidence of Laxmichand to be reliable as he was said to be not good terms with the accused respondent. The learned Magistrate has held that Laxmi Chand was not present at the spot when the sample of the milk was taken. The learned Public Prosecutor has contended that it was clearly proved by prosecution that the milk belonged to the respondent and was purchased by the Food Inspector. If the milk did not belong to the accused it was open for him not to have accepted its price from the Food Inspector. In law there was no obligation on him to have accepted such a price and the Food Inspector could not have forced. The witness produced on behalf of the defence attributed such occurrence to have taken place on March 3, 1969, but it has been evidently proved by the prosecution (hat the occurrence took place on March 1, 1969. In the statement of the accused, he has not said anything but hat the sample did not belong to him and, therefore, the defence evidence produced by the accused respondent is wholly unreliable. This did not cost any doubt on the prosecution story and therefore the learned Magistrate was not justified to hold that the milk in question do not belong to the accused. Secondly, the alleged ill will of the accused against Laxmi Chand has not been established and the learned Magistrate was not within his right to hold that Laxmi Chand was not present at the spot when the sample was taken by the Food Inspect