STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. RUQARIO MENEZES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three revision petitions arise out of three different orders passed by the Addl. Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate First Class Pattur Dakshina Kannada on complaints under the Prevention of Fcod Adulteration Act 1954 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the; Act'). As common questions of fact and law arise in all these three petitions they could conveniently be disposed of by a common order. Cr.R.P. No. 458 of 1978 is directed against the order dated 12-7-1978 passed by the Addl. Magistrate and Judicial Magistrate First Class Puttur Dakshina Kannda a C C No. 1601 of. 1976 on his file discharging the petitioner (who will hereinafter be referred to as 'the accused) for offences punishable under Ss 2(1) (a) and 16(1) read with S. 7 of the Act.

(2.) The facts of the case are) that on 25-12-1975 at about 4-30 p.m. the accused was found selling buffalo's milk to the hotel bearing No. 24-52 of Puttur town municipality. A. Krishna Rao (P. W. 1) the. Food Inspector town municipal council Puttur suspected the purity of the milk purchased 660 ml. of milk from the accused for the purpose of analysis by the Public Analyst Bangalore. He also intimated the accused in writing that the said mile would be sent to the Public Analyst Bangalore. As enjoined under the Rules Form No. 6 was also given to the accused. Further P. W. 1 also paid the costs of the milk purchased namely Re. 1 out the accused refused to receive the same. P.W. 1 thereafter divided the milk into 3 equal parts and filled the same into 3 dry clean bottles and added 16 drops of formalin to each of the bottles as a preservative. After observing the necessary formalities of corking and sealing of the three bottles in the presence of witnesses as also the accused he affixed lable No. 276 over the said bottles. As enjoined under S. 11(1) (c) (i) of the Act he handed over one such sample bottle to the accused but he refused to receive the same. One bottle was sent to the Public Analyst Bangalore for chemical analysis. The Publie Analyst Bangalore after analysing the said milk sent his report as per Report No. PFA/M/1415 dated 3-1-1976 opining that the sample so sent is adulterated for the reasons stated therein. P.W. 1 after obtaining necessary sanction from the President Puttur Town Municipality legged the complaint in question against the accused for the aforesaid offences.

(3.) The learned Magistrate thought fit to make an enquiry for ascertaining whether there was a prima facie case against the accused or not. On behalf of the prosecution only ope witness namely P. W. 1 the Food inspector has got himself examined and also got marked 9 exts. including Ex. P.2 receipt for the purchase of the milk Ex. P. 5 report of P. W. 1. Ex. P.6 chemical report Ex. P.7 report by the Public Analyst and Ex. P8 the sanction accorded by the President of the Town Municipaility Puttur for launching the prosecution against the accused. After examining P.W. 1 the accused was questioned under S. 313 Cr.P.C. to explain the circumstances appcaring against him. The accused has denied the circumstances appearing against him. Arguments were heard before charge and the leamed Magistrate after considering the legal point raised on behalf of the accused came to the conclusion that the complaint is not in conformity with Rule 9(j) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules 1955 as amended by the Prevention of Food Adulteration (Amendment) Rules 1974 an in as such the said mandatory provision is violated and the accused is liable to be discharged. Accordingly he discharged the accused Aggrieved by the said order of discharge the State has challenged the legality and propriety of the said order in the above revision petition.