STATE OF MYSORE Vs. DANJAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the State against the order of acquittal passed by the District Magistrate, South Kanara, Mangalore, acquitting the accused of the offence punishable under Section 16(1)(a) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.

(2.) Briefly, the story of the prosecution is that on 15-11-1961 the accused Dhananjaya sold milk to the Food Inspector, Vincent Silva (P.W. 2), just near the house of Nasereth (P.W. 1) at Karongalpady Road in Mangalore Town. Mr. Silva took the milk to the verandah of Mr. Nasareth, divided the same into three parts and put it into three bottles which he corked and sealed in the presence of the accused and gave him one of the sealed bottles. He sent one bottle to the Public Analyst, who certified that the milk was adulterated and contained 60 per cent of water. The accused was then charge-sheeted for selling adulterated milk. On the evidence, the learned Magistrate took the view that the prosecution had not been successful in establishing its claim that the Food Inspector had taken the sample from the accused and sampled the same in conformity with Section 11 of the Act. As a result of this finding, he recorded an order of acquittal by his judgment dated 23-4-1962.

(3.) Being aggrieved by this decision, the State has preferred this appeal and the learned Additional Assistant Advocate General has contended that the grounds recorded by the Magistrate for acquitting the accused were most unreasonable and inconsistent with the evidence on record and that his findings deserved to be interfered with in appeal. On the other hand, the learned Advocate for the accused has tried to support the judgment by contending that the prosecution had failed to establish that the milk sold by the accused to the Food Inspector was intended for sale. It has also been contended that the Food Inspector who had filed the complaint had not been validly authorised as required by Section 20(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, and that the prosecution instituted by him was bad in law. (His Lordship held after discussing the evidence that the accused was a professional milk vendor, that the milk was intended for sale and that the accused had sold milk in contravention of Section 16(1)(a). The judgment then proceeded :)