1In a case coming under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act , hereinafter called the Act, the first respondent herein, the accused before the Trial Court, was tried on a complaint filed by the Food Inspector. Corporation of Trivandrum (Pw.1) against him alleging that he sold 675 ml. of buffalo milk at 5.30 a.m. on March 16, 1978 out of the bulk quantity which he was carrying on a bicycle for sale which, on analysis, was found to be adulterated. Ext. P6 is the report of the Public Analyst, as per which the sample was found to be adulterated as it did not conform to the standard prescribed and also contained 24% of added water. Ext. P4 is the mahazar prepared on the spot, attested by pw. 2, an independent witness.

2The plea of the accused was one of complete denial and he had no witness to be examined on his side

3In pursuance of the summons served on him, the accused appeared before the Trial Court and put in an application for sending one of the samples kept with the Local (Health) Authority for further analysis to the Central Food Laboratory. As per the certificate of the Director of Central Food Laboratory, the sample sent to him was not in a condition fit for analysis 'as the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document