LexAJITPRASAD RAMKISHAN SINGH versus TIIE STATE OF MAHARASIITRA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A AJITPRASAD RAMKISBAN SINGH v. TIIE STATE OF MAHARASIITRA May 2, 1972 483 B (P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY, K. K. MATHEW AND G. K. MITTER, JJ.) c D E Prevention of Food Adultera:ion Act, 1954 (37 of 1954), s. 13(2) Jong delay between t~king sample and launching prosecution for adu/terotion of milk-If accused doe:: not make application under s. 13(2) he cannot claim that samRle must, have deteriorated and he has lost valuable right to have analysed by Director. The appellant had a ~wect meat shop in Bombay whooe running he had entrusted to his mphew. The food in'.pector acting under the Pre- ventio.1 of Food Adulteration Act 1954 took a sample of buffalo milk from 'he shop. One of the three portions of the sample was given to the vendor, anot,her was sent to the Public Analyst an<l the third was kept by the inspector. The Analyst reported that the fat content of the milk was lower than prescribed. The appellant was prosecuted under s. 16(1)(a) (i) of the Act; the case asainst his nephew was dropped since he was untraceable. The Magistrate acquitbod the appellant. He held that there was long delay between taking the sample and the commence- ment of the prosecution and since the preservative added to the sample was less than prescribed, the sample must have become decomoosed. As a result •. according to the Magistrate, the appellant lost his valuable ri11ht of having his portion of th•J sample analysed by the Director. The High Court reversed the judgment of acquittal holding that since the appellant did not make an:• application under s. 13(2) he could not be said to have lost any valuable right. In appeal to this Court, HELD : The High Court's view was in consonance with the decision of this Court in tl>J case of Babu/al Hargovindas that unles' an applica- tion to send the sample to the Director is made, the vendor cannot com- plain that he was deprived of his right to have the sample analysed by the Director. [486 A-Cl F The Magistrate was wrong in thinking that no useful PlltllOW would G H be served by sending the sample for analy-is by the Director. It was not for the Magistrate to decide without any date that the sample wO\Jld be decompo<ed a"d · was incapable of being analysed. There was no evidence before him to justify this conclusion. [486 Dl The conviction of the aopellant must accordingly be upheld. [Sj:n- tence reduced on the special facts of the case]. Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ghlsa Ram, [19671 2 S.C.R. 116, distinguished. B·ohulal Hargovindas.v. The Stat& of Gujarat, 1 97i (I) S.C.C. 767 applied. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 243 of 1969. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated November 18. 1969 of the Bombay High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1459 of 1968. 484 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1973] 1 S.C.R. M. P. Kenya and K. Rajendra Chowdhary, for the appellant. B. N. Lokur and S. P. Nayar, for the res:xmdent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Mathew, J. This appeal, by special leave, is from the judgment of the High Court of Bombay, convicting the appellant under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with section 7 (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (Act 37 of 1954), hereinafter called the 'Act', and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for 6 months and pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and, in default of payment of fine, to undergo R.I. fur a further period of two months. The appellant was the owner of a sweet meat shop on Kurla- Andheri Road, Bombay. On July 1, 1965; the Food Inspector of the Bombay Municipal Corporation visited his shop at 9.55 A.M. and took a samvle of unboiled buffalo milk after conforming to the formalities enjoined by the Act. The Food Inspector divided the sample into three parts, retained two parts with him and deli- vered the other part to accused No. 2, who alone was in the shop · at the time. The Food Inspector sent one part for analysis by the Public Analyst. _Exhibit 'B' is the report of the Analyst. That showed the fat content of the milk as only 2.7 per cent instead of 6 per cent as required by the rules framed under the A~t. On the basis of the report the accused were prosecuted. Ac~used No. 1, the appellant, admitted that he was the owner of the shop and that accused No. 2 'who actually sold the milk to the Food Inspector was his nephew. As the whereabouts of ac- cused No. 2 could not be traced, the case as against him was dropped. The Magistrate acquitte
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.