( 1 ) THIS judgment shall also govern the disposal of Criminal Appeal No. 683 of 1966 (The State of M. P. v. Kishanaji s/o Bapu ). These appeals arise out of different cases unconnected with each other. But, as we happened to hear them on the same day and as they involved the same question of law, we thought it necessary to dispose them of by a common judgment. The only common thing in both the cases is that the same Food Inspector, Shri R. P. Shrivastava, had taken the samples of milk from the respective respondents on 26-5-1965 at village Manpur, where the respondents had gone to sell the milk. However, we propose to deal with the facts of each case separately.

( 2 ) THE Food Inspector, Shri R. P. Shrivastava, (P. W. 1) had taken the sample of milk from Tulsiram on 26-5-1965. All formalities had been done by the Food inspector and he put one drop of formalin for each ounce of milk in the bottles which were duly sealed in the presence of attesting witnesses. One sample bottle was sent to the Public Analyst on 28-5-1965. It is not known as to when the Public analyst received the sample. However, he issued a report, dated 11-6-1965 (Ex. P/7), wherein he observed that milk fat was 4%, while non-fat solids were 7%. Further, he opined that the milk was adulterated indicating the presence of 22% of added water. He also stated that no change had taken place in the constitution of the sample that would interfere with the analysis. The report was actually sent by him on 11-6-1965. The Public Analyst might have conducted the test at the latest on 11-6-1965 or some time earlier, which means after 15 days of the samples being taken.

( 3 ) THEREAFTER, on 14-8-1965, the Food Inspector filed a complaint against Tulsiram and the respondent actually appeared on 11-9-1965. It appears that he was served on the same day and it was on that date, namely, 11-9-1965, that he could have an opportunity of making a demand for sending any of the remaining sample bottles to the Director of Central Food Laboratory for examination so as to challenge the report of the Public Analyst.

( 4 ) THIS case was registered as Criminal Case No. 163 of 1965 of the Court of the magistrate, 1st Class, Waraseoni, who acquitted Tulsiram, mainly on three grounds:-

(i) That, there was delay in examination of the sample bottle by the public Analyst; (ii) That, there was delay in launching the prosecution, as a result of which the accused was prejudiced and he could not exercise his right as conferred by S. 13 (2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954; (iii) That, as formalin had not been added upto the prescribed quantity, namely, 2 drops per ounce, the value of the report of the Public Analyst was diminished and it could not be asserted by the prosecution that the contents of the sample bottles might not have undergone some change.

( 5 ) THE same Food Inspector, Shri R. P. Shrivastava, had taken the sample milk from the respondent, Kishanji, in the connected appeal on 26-5-1965. The bottles were duly sealed after complying with all formalities. A sample bottle was despatched to the Public Analyst by the Food Inspector on 30-5-1965. The Public analyst, as per the report, Ex. P/7, dated 11-6-1965, found that the milk fat was 4% and non-fat solids were 6. 5%. The Public Analyst opined that the milk did not conform to the prescribed standard for buffalo milk and it indicated the presence of 27% of added water. A challan against Kishnaji was filed on 4-8-1965. On 7-91965, the accused was absent as he could not be served for want of correct address. However, the correct address was furnished and the respondent, kishnaji, appeared in Court on 8-10-1965. That was the earliest time when kishnaji could exercise his right under Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Food adulteration Act 1954. This case was registered as Criminal Case No. 157 of 1965 of the Court of the Magistrate, 1st Class, Waraseoni, and as per the judgment, dated 2-8-1966, the Magistrate acquitted