Milk is a perishable commodity; failure to preserve samples in a cool environment and delayed analysis leads to natural deterioration, rendering the analyst's report unreliable for conviction under the Food Adulteration Act.

Order

1. The present State appeal is directed against the judgment dated 25.06.1997 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirohi, whereby the accused-respondent was acquitted of the charges under Sections 7 /16 of the Food Adulteration Act.

2. The prosecution case, in a nutshell, is that the Food Inspector, Salam Singh, took a sample of milk from the accused-respondent, which was sent for analysis to the Public Analyst. As per the report of the Public Analyst indicating adulteration, a complaint for the offence under Sections 7 /16 of the Food Adulteration Act was filed before the trial Court after obtaining the requisite sanction.

3. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined three witnesses, namely PW-1 Salam Singh, PW-2 Lakshmi Singh, and PW-3 Dr. R.K. Mathur. Thereafter, the statement of the accused-respondent was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., wherein he denied the prosecution evidence and claimed the same to be false. He also took a specific plea that no proper sample was taken from him and that the milk was not adulterated.

4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and appreciating the evidence on record, the trial Court acquitted the accused-respondent of the charges. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the State has preferred the present appeal before this Court.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment under challenge as well as the record of the case.

6. The crux of the judgment passed by the learned trial Court, forming the basis for acquittal of the accused, rests upon the report (Exhibit P-16) prepared by the Public Analyst. As per the said report, the sample contained milk fat of 4.6% and milk solids-not-fat of 9.3%. As per Appendix ‘B’ of the relevant standards, the prescribed minimum for milk fat is 4.5% and for milk solids-not-fat is 8.5%. However, it has come on record that the samples were neither preserved in a refrigerator nor kept in a cool environment; rather, they were stored at room temperature. The sample was taken on 24.11.1993, whereas the analysis was conducted much later on 22.09.1994. Milk being a perishable commodity is susceptible to natural decay and deterioration over time, and its shelf life is inherently limited. In this regard, reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Girishbhai Dahyabhai Shah VS. C.C. Jani And Anr. (2009) 15 SCC 64, wherein the effect of natural decomposition of milk samples over time has been duly recognized.

7. Thus, in view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that no error has been committed by the learned trial Court in acquitting the accused-respondent of the charges. The appeal being devoid of merit deserves to be dismissed.

8. Accordingly, the instant criminal appeal stands dismissed. The bail bonds are discharged.

9. The record of the case be sent back forthwith.