FOOD INSPECTOR QUILON Vs. STEPHEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under S.417 (3) by the complainant is against an order of acquittal.

(2.) The complainant is the Food Inspector of the Quilon Municipality. The charge against the accused was for offences punishable under S.7 & 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 37 of 1954. The complainants case was that the second accused in the case sold to him adulterated milk which belonged to the first accused and thus both the accused had committed the offence. The second accused was discharged on the first day of hearing on the mistaken impression that servant is not liable and the first accused subsequently acquitted on the ground that notice under S.11 of the Act has not been served on him. No evidence was recorded. The acquittal of the first accused alone is challenged in this appeal.

(3.) Sree Eradi contends on behalf of the appellant that the scope of S.11(1)(a) has been misunderstood by the court. According to the learned counsel the notice required under S.11 has to be given only to the person from whom the sample was taken. We feel that the contention should prevail.