JUDGMENT : This is an appeal under S. 417(3) Cr. P.C. against an order of acquittal D/-12-02-1962, recorded by a Magistrate 1st Class, Agra, in a case under S. 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

2. The Medical Officer of Health. Agra Municipality, filed a complaint against the opposite party on the allegations that on 19-6-59 he was found carrying goat's milk in his can for sale; that Sri. R. Kumar, Food Inspector, (P.W. 1) purchased three-fourth seer of milk from the opposite-party for sample, that the sample was sent to the Public Analyst for his report; that the report of the Public Analyst dated 30-7-1959 shows that the sample contained about 27% of water and as such was adulterated, and that the opposite party thereby had committed an offence punishable under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

3. In support of the allegations in the complaint, Sri. R. Kumar, Food Inspector, Agra Municipal Board was examined as P.W. 1. He stated that he had obtained the sample of milk from the accused and after dividing it into 3 portions, he gave one to the accused, kept one with him, and sent the other to the public Analyst, Lucknow for his report. He also stated that on enquiry, the opposite-party had informed him that it was goat's milk which he was carrying for sale and he also gave it in writing, which was Ex. Ka-7.

4. The opposite-party pleaded not guilty and urged that he was not selling the milk but was carrying it to his village and it was not for sale. He admitted that sample of the milk was taken by the Food Inspector and a portion of the sample in another phial was given to him but he denied having received its price. He also stated that he had not mixed water in the milk but had purchased it in the market and was taking it to his home for his own consumption. He admitted to have signed the receipt paper No. A and the report paper No. B, under duress.

5. From the perusal of the order-sheet of the trial court, it appears that the opposite-putty took various dates for producing evidence in defence, but ultimately he led no defence evidence and the case was argued on his behalf on 12-2-1962. The order-sheet of that date appears to have been signed by the respondent.

6. The report of Sri R.S. Srivastava, Public Analyst, Government of Uttar Pradesh, (Ex. Ka-5) is dated 30th July 1959. It was pointed out to the trial court that Sri Srivastava had been appointed Public Analyst to the Government by Gazette Notification No. 2718/XVI-(II)-722-55, dated July 27, 1959, with effect from August 3, 1959 and, therefore, his report in the case was valueless. This contention was accepted by the learned Magistrate who relied on a decision of Hon'ble uniyal, J. in Vishwanath Ahir v. State of U.P., Criminal Revn, No. 1189 of 1960 (All) and acquitted the accused, holding that as Dr. Srivastava was not a Public Analyst on 30-7-1959, his report could not bring the charge home to the accused.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant. None has appeared on belief of the opposite-party, though the office report shows that the notice has been duly served on him.

8. Learned counsel contends that the Notification No. 2718/XVI (II-722-55, dated 27th July 1959, as published in the Hindi Gazette shows that Sri Srivastava was appointed as Public Analyst with effect from 3rd of April, 1959 and not from 3rd of August, 1959 as printed in the English version of the same Notification. Learned counsel contends that the date August 3, 1959 mentioned in the English version of the Gazette Notification was a clerical error which had crept in place of 3rd April, 1959, which was the correct date of appointment of Sri Srivastava as Public Analyst.

9. Notification No. 2718/XVI (II)-722-55, of July, 27, 1959, which mentions the date of appointment of Public Analyst as 3rd August 1959 is published in U.P. Gazette Part I dated August 1, 1959. Hindi version of the same Notification giving 3rd April 1959 as the date of appointment of the P

Click Here to Read the rest of this document