STATE OF KERALA Vs. P K RAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the State is against the acquittal of the 1st accused in O. G. 20/69 by the District Magistrate (Judicial), Kottayam, in respect of an offence under Sections 7 (1) and 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1951 (Act 37 of 1954 ).

(2.) ON the morning of 12-12-68 at about ,10. 30 a. m. the predecessor of P. W. 1, Food Inspector, Kumarakam Panchayat, one deceased Itticheriya, went to the Kumarakam market accompanied by his peon, P. W. 2, Rajappan when they intercepted adulterated Ice candy which was being carried by the 1st accused-respondent for gale in an Ice box within the market, out of which Itticheriya purchased 80 Ice candy sticks worth Rs. 1-50 from the respondent and in token of the receipt of the amount the respondent issued Ext. P-3 receipt. Then Ext. P-1, Form No. 6 notice was issued by the Food Inspector to the respondent, which was also acknowledged by him. The sample taken by the Food Inspector was divided into 3 parts and they were separately bottled and sealed on application of the requisite preservative. One such sample was given to the respondent and each of the remaining two samples were sent, one to the Court and the other to the Public Analyst. Ext. P-2 is the mihazar prepared by the Food Inspector as required by Sections 10 and 11 of the Act referred to above. Ext. P-2 mahazar was not only signed by the respondent, but also by two witnesses, who are examined as P. W. 3, Aniyan and P. W. 4, Narayanan. The Public Analyst on examination of the sample found that it contained artificial sweeteners, saccharin and dulcin and is therefore adulterated, and that the use of dulcin in food is not permitted on account of the fact that its consumption is injurious to public health. He also found that no decomposition had taken place in the sample, that would interfere with the analysis. Ext. P-5 is the report by the Public Analyst. On receipt of the report, P. W. 1, the present Food Inspector of the Panchayat, laid the charge against the respondent as well as the 2nd accused, who was found to be the owner of the Ice candy which was sent for sale through the reapondent. The respondent had nothing to say as against the evidence adduced against him when be was questioned under Section 342, Criminal P. C. however, the 2nd accused was discharged by the Court below.

(3.) THE lower Court on an examination of the evidence found that the prosecution did not comply with the provisions of Section 10 (7) of the Act and therefore the prosecution is not sustainable thereby the respondent was acquitted. The appeal is against that acquittal.