JUDGMENT

N.S. Shekhawat, J.

Assailing the impugned judgment dated 07.03.2007 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh, whereby the respondents were ordered to be acquitted of the charge under section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act'), the Union Territory of Chandigarh has preferred the present appeal before this Court.

2. As per the complaint instituted by the appellant/State; at about 3.30 p.m., on 21.02.1986, Balbir Singh, Food Inspector inspected the premises of accused Dharam Pal and found the accused Titu having in his possession about 5 kgs of tonned milk for sale in his sweat shop, namely, M/s Paul Sweets, stored in a 'Patila' (steal pan). A notice was served by Food Inspector in writing in form VI and demanded a sample of tonned milk and purchased 660 mls of milk for analysis after mixing against cash payment of Rs. 2.50/-. Milk was divided into three equal parts and was put into three dry and clean bottles. 18 drops of formaline were added as preservative in each bottle. The bottles were labelled, stoppered, secured, fastened and then wrapped in strong and thick papers and the ends of the wrapper were neatly folded and pasted with gum. A paper slip bearing serial number, code number and signatures of the Local (Health) Authority, Chandigarh was wrapped around each sample bottle from top to bottom and pasted with gum. The bottles were further secured by means of strong thread and sealed with four distinct seals. The thumb impression of accused was obtained on each bottle in such a manner that the paper slip and the wrapper both carried a part of the signatures. Thereafter, one sealed part of the sample was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis alongwith the copy of the memorandum on Form VII in a sealed packet. A copy of the memorandum and specimen impression of the seal used to seal the sample bottles were also sent to the Public Analyst in a sealed envelope separately under intimation to the Local Health Authority. The sample was taken in the presence of Shri Parveen son of Swaran Lal, resident of SCF No. 29, Sector 27-C, Chandigarh. The remaining two sealed samples were handed over to the Local (Health) Authority, for safe custody. The report of the Public Analyst was received through Local (Health) Authority, U.T., Chandigarh according to which the sample was deficient in Milk fat by 93% of the minimum prescribed standards. It is alleged that accused has committed an offence under Section 7 (i) of the Act punishable under Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Act.

3. At this stage, it requires mention that the respondent No. 2 has already expired and the appeal qua him stands abated.

4. After hearing the parties, it was found by the learned trial Court that a charge under Section 7 (i) of the PFA Act, which was punishable under Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the PFA Act was found to have been made out against the accused and was charge sheeted, accordingly. After the framing of charges, again the accused was given a chance to cross-examine PW1 Balbir Singh, Food Inspector and Gangai Yadav, Senior Assistant and the evidence was closed by the prosecution.

5. After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the statements of both the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and they claimed that they were innocent and the sample was not taken properly by the Food Inspector. The accused did not lead any defence evidence.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the learned trial Court has wrongly held that the milk was not stored in the kitchen for the