11.04.2014

IN THE COURT OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE: KAMRUP(M):
GUWAHATI.
VIS 7/16 of the Prevention of the Food Adulteration Act, 1954
(as amended)
(PFA Act)
i
Present:
I
Shri Dipankar Bora, MA, LL.M, AJS,
Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Kamrup(M), Guwahati.
I
Appeared:
1
For the' State:
Smti M. Saikia, learned Addl. P.P.
-I
For the accused:
II
Shri
S.
Sharma,
:-------_ i
Advocate.
13.06.12, 26.03.13, 11~7.13
Date of Evidence:
Date of argument:
05.04.14
Date of Judgment:
11.04.14
~})t~b'\'"
.
\,\'"
1.
visited
(Sr.),
Kamrup,
the Ulubari
Sri Krishna
Office
Guwahati,
!
i
of the
in brief,
area to inspect
,
1
I
The case of the complainant,
Food Inspector
Chil~rJudicial Magistrate,
:<arnru;: (1,'tO>:CG~ c&efiv1ces,
G~ \,;alatl
-I "
Joint
Sri Hiren
Director
is that
Ch.Kalita,
of
Health
on 20.08.07 he
cow's milk and approached
Prasad Rijal (Milk Vendor)
at Ulubari and collected
sample of cow's milk bearing code and SI. No. HK-G/32/07
him which were kept for sale for human consumption,
the same to be adulterated,
the required
formalities
the same analyzed
After analyzing
from
suspecting
collected samples after observing
under the PFA Act. Thereafter,
all
he got
by the Public Analyst to the Govt. of Assam.
the said milk sample,
the Public Analyst
to the
Govt. of Assam opined that the milk sample is deficient
in Milk
Fat as per minimum
in PFA
standard
Rules, hence adulterated.
sanction
from
Report
before
prescribed
Then after
court
against
he filed the Offence
accused
all the prescribed
rules.
On the basis of the said Offence Report, the instant
Complaint
Case
was
against the aforesaid
copies
the prosecution
the aforementioned
person under the PFA Act after following
2.
getting
the Local Health Authority,
this
for the item
of all the
Particulars
explained
registered
accused.
relevant
and
cognizance
On appearance
documents
of offences punishable
were
was
taken.
of the accused,
furnished
to him.
U/S 7/16 of the PFA Act were
to the accused person to which he pleaded not gUilty
and stood to face the trial.
4.
"~~
To bring home the charge, the prosecution
two witnesses
on its behalf
and exhibited
.I.~~6\cial ~~
.~</. ~t.f;.;' :.?-:~,\documents.
!~(~<1 ~
r;r.P.c.
a large number
of
,
The accused
was thereafter
examined
U/S 313
His plea was of total denial. He refused to adduce any
~, {:~~e~/~;/evidenCE'
~~M:;~\r~/
examined
on his behalf.
The case was thereafter
argued by both
the sides·,
S.
The points for determination are:
Whether
;Jl--
\)"':~'1
(\\~
Chief Judicial Magistrate,
!(amrup (MC'o) District
Guw 31 all
occurrence
"
the accused on the day of the alleged
was selling milk which was adulterated
as per the standard
and punishable
prescribed
in the PFA Rules
U/S 16 of the PFA act?
Decision and reasons thereof:
6.
The learned counsel for the defence argued the case
mainly on two points; firstly,
according to him the P.W.l
Food
Inspector Sri Hiren Ch.Kalita did not comply with the mandatory
provisions prescribed UjS 13(2) of the PFA Act. He stated that
P.W.1 never issued any notice under the said section as he failed
to prove any acknowledgement
of receipt of the Notice sent to
the accused as claimed by him.
The learned counsel for the
defence has placed two citations - (I) Indradev Yadav & Anr.-VsState of Assam, reported in 2011(3)
GLT 96 and (II)
Shyamal
Nag -Vs- State of Assam, reported in 2004(1) GLT 667.
7.
Offence
The second point raised by the defence is that the
Report nowhere discloses the actual place where the
alleged incident had taken place.
8.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the State of Orissa -
Vs- Gauranga Sahu, reported in 2003 Cr.L.J. 3077 held that the
forwarding of the report of the Public Analyst to the accused UjS
13(2)
of the
PFA Act 19S4 is not a ritual
but a statutory
requirement to be mandatorily observed. It was further held that
not only dispatch
of the report,
but even its receipt
C'lccusedhas to be proved by the prosecution.
The denial of this
valuable right of the accused would constitute
accused entitling
him to acquittal.
by the
prejudice to the
The two judgments
as cited
by the learned counsel for the defence are in conformity with the
above cited judgment
9.
passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
As we turn to the evidence of P.W.l, we find that he
proved the offence report as Ext-iS which 1'e has forwarded to
this court by the forwarding letter which he proved as Ext-16. He
~'
.. ,
stated that after launching of the prosecution, the Local Health
~\:'"
I
I·
I"
I
i
I
issued Notice UjS 13(2) of the PFA Act along with the
I
of the analysis report to the accused Krishna Prasad Rijal.
I
Authority
Ghie{\'J.fOl_ia! Mngistrate,
!(amrup (M:::"oj OIGlDiPtf
r--~J
Guwal1atl
According
to
him
the
aforesaid
notice
was
sent
through
Registered Post and he proved the notice as Ext-17 and the
Postal Receipt as Ext-18. P.W.1 has remained completely silent
with ·regard to any evidence showing that the accused had really
received
the Notice (Ext-l7)
issued by him through
Ext-18.
I
I
I
There is no reliable evidence on the record to show that the
Notice was in fact received by the accused.
10.
It is the bounden duty of the prosecution to establish
firstly, that the said Notice was sent and secondly the same was
in fact received
by the accused, from whom the sample was
allegedly collected.
It stands settled that it is the duty of the
prosecution to establish by adducing sufficient evidence that the
notice as required UjS 13(2) of the Act was duly served on the
accused person or that he had received the same. Moreover, on
scrutiny it is found that the Offence report does not disclose the
actual
place
therefore,
of
the
occurrence.
All
these
discrepancies,
make the prosecution case unreliable.
'11.
In view of the same, though
examined two witnesses, that is P.W.l
the prosecution
has
Sri Hiren Ch. Kalita and
P.W.2 Sri Satish Ch. Bharali, the peon accompanying
the P.W.l
on the alleged day of occurrence, I do not find any necessity to
discuss the evidence adduced by them in detail.
12.
its case.
Thus, I find that the prosecution has failed to prove
As such, the accused person is acquitted
from the
offences charged against him and set at liberty forthwith.
His bail
b.,::>nd~
shall remain extended for a period of six months on the
basis of the petition filed by the accused in that regard.
seized article be restored on the owner in due course.
The
The case
is disposed of.
13. Given under my hand and seal of this Court on this
11th day of April, 2014.
~~"~
(D. Bora)
Chief Judicial Magistrate,
.Kamrup(M), Guwahati.
Chief Judicial Magistrate.
Kamrup (Metro) District
GU'.vahati
Typed by:
U Talukdar, Stenographer
~~\.{\ttrl\ I.
r
(D. Bora)
Chief Judicial Magistrate,
.Kamrup(M), Guwahati.
Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Kamrup (Metro) District
Guwahati

Download Report