The validity of the notification of the Food Inspector and the composition of the milk sample are crucial in determining the applicability of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.

V.M. Jain, J. - This appeal has been filed by the State of Haryana, against the acquittal of the accused-respondent for the offence under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short the Act), by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtak, vide judgment dated 9.6.1993.

2. The facts which are relevant for the decision of the present case are that on 10.5.1989 at about 11 a.m. Kali Ram, Govt. Food Inspector accompanied by Jagbir Singh had gone to the shop of the accused situated near District Courts, Rohtak, for taking sample. At that time the accused was found having 7 kgs of cows milk in his possession contained in a Patila meant for public sale and the Food Inspector after disclosing his identity and after serving notice Exhibit PA had purchased 750 ml of cows milk after properly stirring the same, against the payment of Rs. 3.50 vide receipt Exhibit-PB. The sample so purchased was divided into three equal parts and the bottles were properly sealed etc. after putting preservative therein. Spot memo Exhibit-PC was prepared at the spot. Thereafter, one part of the sample was sent to the Public Analyst through registered post along with memo in Form VII vide postal receipt dated 11.5.1989 and the remaining two parts of the sample were deposited in Local Health Authorities, Rohtak. On receipt of the report from the Public Analyst that the sample was adultered on the ground that milk solids not fat were deficient to the extent of 20% of the minimum prescribed standard, a criminal complaint was instituted in the Court and a copy of the report of the Public Analyst was sent to the accused as required under Section 13 of the Act. After the filing of the complaint, the accused had put in appearance and the case was tried as a warrant case. After recording pre-charge evidence, formal charge under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act was framed against him to which charge he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. After recording prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code was recorded in which he denied the prosecution allegations against him and stated that the milk was not for sale and was meant for tea and coffee and that the Food Inspector had not taken the samples in accordance with the Rules and that no witness was present.

3. After hearing both sides and perusing the record, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, vide judgment dated 9.6.1993 acquitted the accused of the charge framed against him. Aggrieved against the same, the State of Haryana filed the present appeal against the acquittal of the accused- respondent in this Court.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully.

5. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate while acquitting the accused- respondent of the charge under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act, found that the Food Inspector was not competent to take the sample and to lodge the prosecution against the accused-respondent without any valid notification of the State Government in his favour. It was found that in the initial notification Exhibit-DA, the name of the Food Inspector was mentioned as Kaji Ram and later on it was rectified, retrospectively by the Government and the notification was issued in the name of Kali Ram. It was found that in this manner Kali Ram, Food Inspector was not authorised to take the sample and to lodge the prosecution. On this ground alone, the learned Magistrate had acquitted the accused-respondent of the charge framed against him.

6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, in my opinion, the reasoning given by the learned Magistrate in acquitting the accused-respondent is not borne out from the record and the acquittal of the accused-respondent on this ground cannot be upheld. The prosecution in this case was lodged by Sh. Ajmer Singh, Food Inspector in whose favour, there was a notification, Exhibit-PG. Exhibit-DA is the