STATE Vs. Y JAYAPAL HEGDE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State is in appeal questioning the judgment of the lower appellate Court by which the learned Judge of the lower appellant Court had reversed the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court in C. C. No. 75/1989 for the offence punishable under Section 7 (i) r/w 2 (ia) (a) and (m) the Prevention of Food Adulteration act, 1954 ('the Act' for short ).

(2.) THE facts in brief are to the effect that the Food Inspector of Primary health Centre, Ajekar in Karkala Taluk, had visited the provision shop run by the respondent-accused on 30-8-1988 and found that the arrowroot item kept in the shop was adulterated one and not fit for human consumption and, therefore, he purchased 600 grams of arrowroot from the respondent and put it in plastic covers and thereafter a mahazar was conducted and the sample was subjected to test by the public analyst. The report given by the public analyst on 1-10-1988 was to the effect that the samples of arrowroot were found to be adulterated with starches other than arrowroot and, therefore, a report was sent to the District Health officer, Mangalore, who in turn accorded permission to the Food Inspector shri Chandrashekhara Shetty to institute prosecution against the respondent. This is how the prosecution began and in support of its case, the prosecution examined P. Ws. l and 2 and documents Exs. P-1 to P-20 were marked. No evidence was placed by the respondent.

(3.) AFTER appreciating the evidence on record, the trial Court accepted the case of the prosecution and convicted the respondent for the offences under Section 7 (i) read with 2 (ia) (a) and (m)punishable under Section 16 (l) (a) (i) of the Act and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 800/- and also to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence passed as aforesaid, the respondent-accused preferred appeal before the District and Sessions Judge, udupi. The lower appellate Court, after considering the contentions urged before it, allowed the appeal filed by the respondent on two grounds viz. , that the prosecution did not follow the provisions of the Act and the Prevention of Food adulteration Rules, 1955 ('the Rules' for short) in regard to collection of samples and it was collected not in bottle or jar or other container, but it was collected in polythene bags, which was violative of the requirement of rule 14 of the Rules and the second reason is that the lower appellate court found that the prosecution had failed to comply with the requirement of Section 20 of the Act insofar as sanction to prosecute the respondent is concerned. The Court found that the district Health Officer was not competent to accord sanction to launch prosecution and, therefore, the sanction was invalid. It is these two grounds that led the lower appellate court to reverse the judgment of conviction and sentence passed and to acquit the respondent by allowing his appeal.