The State of Rajasthan Vs. NaraIn Das - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
prevention of food adulteration act, 1954 - section 7/16--acquittal--when justified--food inspector took sample of ice-candy--inspector took samples of kulif paying purchase amount of rs. 1/- sealed in bottle but without any medicine--bottles were not clean--sample, as per public analyst report contains only 001% milk which is negligible--held, accused respondent was rightly acquitted by trial court. - - solid fats are to be not less than 26%.,whereas as per public analyst report, the questioned sample contained like this:c.m. totla, j.1. assailed is respondent's acquittal for the offence of section 7/16 of the prevention of food adulteration act as per above judgment dt. 21.06.1988.2. heard learned public prosecutor and also learned counsel for the respondent.3. brief alleged facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that on 23.04.1979 at 8.30 am, food inspector pw 1, in presence of witness pw2, collected sample of ice candy-purchasing the same from the shop/establishment of respondent - the same was sealed in three empty glass bottles as per prescribed procedure - memos and various forms prepared are exs.p2 to 4-and part of the same was forwarded to public analyst for examination and on receipt of analysis report ex.p-6 doing needful and obtaining sanction ex.p-7, complaint for the offence of section 7 read with section 17 pf act submitted. appellant charged for the offence, claimed trial.4. for prosecution, examined are two witnesses inspector pw 1 and the 'motbir' pw 2, whose signatures are on respective memos.5. learned magistrate acquitted accused-appellant broadly for the reasons (1) sample of what taken ?-if of ice candy so was not asked to respondent, (2) immediately prior to collection of the sample, a sample of milk from other was collected which was emptied from the bottles so probably, the bottles contained little milk. also observed is that public analyst report is not complete and as per evidence and facts established, it cannot be accepted that the sample only of ice candy was taken.6. learned public prosecutor argued that as per memos and also as per evidence of food inspector, sample taken was of ice candy-the sample does not conform to the standard of any type of ice cream and assumption that the bottles being not very clean, is not based on evidence.7. for the respondent, contentions are that (1) above finding of the trial court is quite correct, (2) sanction entirely contrary to law as on cyclostyled proforma with fill in blanks, (3) sample collected in the year, 1979 and acquittal of the year, 1988 and by now, more than 20 years. in support of contentions, reliance is placed on (1) state of rajasthan v. govind ram 1991 cr.l.r. (raj.) 34; (2) state of rajasthan v. keshavdeo 1989 (14) r.cr.c. 363; (3) state of rajasthan v. sita ram 2005(2) r.cr.d. 518(raj.) : 2005 (2) cr.l.r. (raj.) 983; (4) state of rajasthan v. lasmi chand 2000 (2) rcc 1315; (5) state of rajasthan v. mohanlal and ors. 2009 (2) rcc 180; (6) state of rajasthan v. vishvashwar 2009 (1) rcc 114; (7) state of rajasthan v. balveer prasad 2009 (2) rcc 311 and (8) state of rajasthan v. shanker lal 2009 (1) rcc (raj.) 410.8. giving thoughtful consideration to the arguments, perused the record and judgment impugned. as per memos, sample taken is of ice candy. for ice candy prescribed standard mentioned in a 07.04.01 is total sugar (as sacrin ) not to be less than 10%. for ice cream kulfi etc. the standards described are in a 11.02.2007 and total solid for any ice cream kulfi are not to be less than 25%. as above, the sample as per public analyst report contains only 0.1% milk, very meagre almost negligible so the inference that the bottles were not clean-cannot be said to be contrary to evidence or baseless.9. here, it may be mentioned that as for the ice cream etc. solid fats are to be not less than 26%., whereas as per public analyst report, the questioned sample contained like this:- (i) milk fat 0.1%, (ii) artificial sacrin present, (iii) sugar absent, (iv) added colour-permissible coal tar dyes present and finding is to the effect that it did not conform to the prescribed standard of purity. as above is the questioned quantity of artificial sweetness but milk 0.1% that is too meagre and negligible in relation to minimum prescribed standard for kulfi.10. inspector pw 1 only states that ice candy for sale was present. in cross-examination, states that he does not remember and cannot remember even on suggesting that whether or not on that very day, he collected samples of milk from madanlal and emptied the same from the bottles because of the insufficient quantity. witness of taking sample pw 2 states that his shop is nearby and he called there-inspector taking sample of kulfi paying purchase amount re 1/- sealed in the bottles but without any medicine-in cross-examination, says that this ice candy was fridge water and the inspector taking a sample from mohanlal had emptied the bottles and in the same bottles this sample was sealed.11. considering above, findings as per impugned judgment cannot be said to be erroneous or contrary to evidence.12. as such there is no force in this appeal. as the appeal is so rejected for above reasons other contentions advanced for respondent do not need to be dealt with.13. the appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed.