FOOD INSPECTOR Vs. JOY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Food Inspector, Changanacherry Municipality, is the appellant. The appeal is against the acquittal of the accused in respect of offences punishable under S.7(1) and (4) and 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, (for short the Act), read with R.44-A(b) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955.

(2.) On 29-9-1977 Pw-1, Food Inspector, visited the shop of the first accused and purchased 750 grams of peas dhall for the purpose of analysis, on paying the price thereof. The public analyst reported that the sample was adulterated and that it consisted of a mixture of lac dhall, otherwise known as kesari dhall, to the extent of about 5 per cent and peas dhall to the extent of about 95 per cent

(3.) The complainant examined himself as Pw-1 and the salesman of the shop, who is stated to have been present at the time of sampling, as Pw-2. Pw-2 turned hostile. The Trial Court found from the mahazar evidencing the taking of the sample that of the two witnesses who witnessed the transaction, one was Pw-2 the salesman of the shop of the accused and that the other was the peon of the Food Inspector. There was thus failure on the part of the Food Inspector to call one or more independent witnesses to be present at the time of the action taken by him, and as such there was non compliance of S.10(7) of the Act. The accused were acquitted on that basis. The order of acquittal is challenged in this appeal.