the learned judges who decided that case drew a distinction between ghee obtained from cattle in the hill districts of uttar pradesh and those from cattle in the plains.
that the sample was adulterated.
on receipt of this report the medical officer of health haidwani sanctioned the pro secution of the respondent and a companyplaint was thereafter laid before the magistrate 1st class by the food inspector.
we shall later refer the minimum reichert value prescribed for ghee in the jodhpur area was 21 and that minimum re quirement was satisfied by the sample analysed.
there was of companyrse numberpoint raised before him as regards the correctness of the analysis.
it may be mentioned that even in the seizure memo the food inspector numbered the ghee purchased by him as pahadi ghee.
subsequently the second sample was got analysed by the director central food laboratory who reported that his analysis disclosed a reichert value of 21 7 as against 22 5 of the public analyst.
one of the samples was forwarded to the public analyst to the government of uttar pradesh for analysis forascertaining whether the said ghee was adulterated.the analysis disclosed that in several respects the samplewas sub standard and that in particular it had a reichertvalue of 22 5 as against the prescribed minimum of 28 for ghee in uttar pradesh.
the defence of the respondent who admitted that he had sold the ghee samples of which were the subject of analysis but denied it was adulterated was two fold 1 he had obtained the ghee which he sold from jodhpur 2 the sample must be held number to be adulterated on the basis of the decision of the allahabad high companyrt in state v. malik ram 1 .
the plea by the respondent regarding the ghee sold having come from jodhpur was made because if this were established under the rules framed under the act to which a.i.r.
appeal from the judgment and order dated may 2 1962 of the allahabad high companyrt in criminal revision number 1579 of 1961.
the respondent thereupon filed a criminal revision petition to the high companyrt under ss.
1962 all.
harnam singh chadda and harbans singh for the respondent.
the a.i.r.
the facts giving rise to the prosecution are briefly these the respondent runs a shop at haldwani and among the products sold by him is ghee.
the opinion expressed by him as regards the sample of ghee which he analysed was the same as that of the public analyst viz.
p. rana and c. p. lal for the appellant.
criminal appellate jurisdiction criminal appeal number 164 of 1962.
1962 au.
the respondent preferred an appeal to the sessions judge kumaon and raised the same pleas and defences as he put forward before the learned magistrate.
on march 19 1960 a quantity of the ghee was purchased by the food inspector of the area and he put samples of the purchase into three phials which were sealed in the respondents presence.
the sessions judge concurred in the finding of the magistrate regarding the story of the respondent having bought the ghee from jodhpur and he also agreed with the magistrate about the effect of the decision of the division bench of the high companyrt which was also relied on before him.
the res pondent led evidence to prove his purchase from jodhpur but the learned magistrate did number accept this case.
134 1 c of the companystitution is against a judgment of that companyrt acquitting the respondent kartar singh of an offence under s. 7 read with s. 16 1 a of the prevention of food adulteration act 1954 which may be companyveniently referred to as the act.
as there were areas in the companyntry in regard to which a minimum reichert value of 21 had been prescribed he held that the respondent was number guilty of adulteration and so directed his acquittal.
it is from this decision that the present appeal has been filed by the state.
the respondent pleaded number guilty and entered on his defence.
the learned judge of the high companyrt agreed with the companyrts below on the finding of fact as regards the jodhpur origin of the ghee observing as the file stands i am satisfied that this ghee was of local origin.
february 6 1964.
the other defence was a point of law relying on the decision of a division bench of the allahabad high companyrt reported as state v. malik ram 1 .
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by ayyangar j. this appeal which companyes before us on a certificate of fitness granted by the high companyrt of allahabad under art.
this decision was relied on by the respondent because the ghee sold by him was numbered as pahadi ghee by the food inspector.
after setting out the details of the ana lysis the public analyst expressed the opinion that the sample companytained a small proportion of vegetable fat or oil foreign to pure ghee.
