Be it stated at the very outset that adding of preservative to the food stuff seized as sample is one of the necessary requirement of the law and is thus one of the most important ingredients to be pleaded and proved. In this case, the Food Inspector in his statement in the court has stated that he had added 20 drops of formalin in' each of the three sample bottles and it is mentioned in the Panchnama Ex. P-3 also that 20 drops of formalin each were put in three sample bottles. As already stated here-in-above, the adding of preservative to the sample food has its own significance as it preserve the food* to enable its proper analysis when it is so analysed. If inadequate quantity of formalin is added or no preservative is added at all, the result of the analysis cannot be expected to be a correct one. Thus, this is one of the material particular to be alleged in the complaint which has not been admittedly mentioned in the complaint. Thus, a suspicion is raised about the statement of the Food Inspector about his having added the requisite quantity of preservative to the sample. The Panchnama in which it is mentioned is in printed form and it cannot be said to have been consciously written by the Food Inspector therein that he added 20 drops of the formalin to each of the sample bottles. The suspicion is further strengthened for the reason that the milk sample has been analysed twice, once by the Public Analyst and subsequently by the Director, Central Food Laboratory and a perusal of the report and the certificate respectively issued by them reveal that when the milk was analysed by the Public Analyst the milk fat contents thereof were found 2.3% whereas such contents were only 1.6% when the milk was analysed by the Director, Central Food Laboratory. Similarly, the milk solid not fat contents found in the milk sample as per the report of the Public Analyst were 6.1%, whereas according to the certificate issued by the Director, Central Food Laboratory were 5.55%. One of the reasons for these variations in the conclusions arrived at on analysis may be want of adoption of proper procedure in seizing the sample. Therefore the suspicion raised by non-mention in the complaint about the adding of the formalin to the samples is compounded and thus on this aspect the conclusion arrived at by the trial Magistrate is justified.
Equivalent Citation: 1999(2)ShimLC401,2000 FAJ 33 HP
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Cr. Appeal No. 412 of 1996
Decided On: 10.06.1999
Appellants: State of H.P.
Vs.
Respondent: Jagtar Singh
Vs.
Respondent: Jagtar Singh
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
M.R. Verma, J.
M.R. Verma, J.
