BHARGAVA, J. This is an application in revision by Sohan against his conviction under sec. 16 read with sec. 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954 (hereinafter called the Act). The trial Magistrate sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for three months and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to further imprisonment for three months. In appeal the sentence was reduced to payment of fine of Rs. 500/- only.

2. The charge against him was that on 3rd March, 1959 at about 9 a. m. he was found selling cows milk near Kabootron-ka-Chowk in Jodhpur City from which some milk was purchased by the Food Inspector of Jodhpur Municipality who divided it in three parts, filled it in three bottles, sealed them and sent one of them to the public Analyst and on his report that it was adulterated, obtained the consent of the Chairman, Municipal Board for his prosecution and filed a complaint in the court of the Munsif Magistrate, First Class, Jodhpur. The report of the public Analyst showed that the percentage of solid non-fat did not conform to the prescribed standard. The courts below have therefore found that the petitioner was guilty of selling adulterated milk.

3. It is not disputed that the petitioner was offering milk for sale on 3rd March, 1959 from which Shri Pyare Nath Narhari, Food Inspector of Jodhpur Municipality purchased milk worth /-6/- and after putting it in 3 bottles and sealing them sent one of them to the public Analyst.

4. The contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner are :

(1) that the report of the public Analyst does not show the date on which the milk was analysed;

(2) that there was no evidence that formalin was added to milk before it was sent to the public Analyst,

(3) that there was not proper sanction for the prosecution, inasmuch as Shri Jai Lal Sharma, President Municipal Board, Jodhpur had not been authorised to give consent for the prosecution and also because no particular person was named in the sanction to prosecute the petitioner.

5. As the report of the Public Analyst was silent regarding the date, on which he had examined the sample of milk, I called him for his examination in this Court. From his statement which was recorded today, it is proved that he had examined the milk on the same day it was sent to him by the Food Inspector i. e. 3rd March, 1959. His explanation for not mentioning the date of examination in the report is that there is no specific column for it in the prescribed form. Whether the prescribed form contains any column for the date of the examination or not, there should be something on the report to show that the articles of food sent for analysis were examined before there was chance of their disintegration. Without the examination in the report by the public analyst it becomes difficult for the court to know as to when the articles of food were examined by him, which leaves room for the argument that by the time they were analysed the articles of food had undergone a change. It is, therefore, desirable that the public Analysts in their report should mention the time and date of the examination of the articles of food sent to them for analysis, more so because under sec. 13(5) of the Act, the report is used as evidence of the facts stated therein without the statement of the Public Analyst in the court. In the present case, the Public Analyst had stated that the milk was in good and analysable condition and had it not been so, he would have declared it as curdled. Therefore, the objection that milk was examined long after it was sent to the Public Analyst and that it had deteriorated in quality, has no force.

6. Absence of evidence about adding of preservative by the Food Inspector to the milk which was sent to the Public Analyst, is of no consequence in the present case because the Public Analyst has stated that at the time of examination the milk was in good and analysable condition. But generally speaking, there should be evidence on oath that preserva

Click Here to Read the rest of this document