STATE Vs. GEORGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these appeals have been preferred by the State against the acquittal of the accused in C.C. Nos. 1297 and 1298 of 1953 on the file of the II Class Magistrates Court at Mukundapuram. These prosecutions were launched at the instance of the Sanitary Inspector at Chalakudy. Both the accused are traders having their business at Chalakudy, and the charge against them was that the tea that was being sold from their shops was adulterated tea and that therefore they were guilty of having committed the offence under S.4(1)(d) of the Cochin Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (Act XIV of 1109) read with Rules 22(a) and 28 of the rules framed under S. 19 of the Act. The accused in C.C. 1297/1953 was dealing in Kannan Devan tea sold in quarter pound packets, while the accused in C.C. 1298/1953 was dealing in Brooke Bond tea dust sold in quarter-pound packets. The Sanitary Inspector who has been examined as the first witness for the prosecution in each of these cases, purchased one packet of Kannan Devan tea from the accused in C.C. 1297 on 12.8.1953 and another packet of Brook Bond tea dust from the accused in C.C. 1298 on the same day and got the samples of tea taken from each of these packets examined by the Public Analyst at Ernakulam who has been examined as prosecution 2nd witness. The certificate issued by this witness is to the effect that the samples of tea were not genuine tea for the reason that the sample of tea purchased from the accused in C.C. 1297 contained about 4 to 6 per cent of added powdered tea stalk, while the sample of tea purchased from the accused in C.C. 1298 contained 2 to 4 per cent of added powdered tea stalk. The prosecutions were started on the strength of the certificates thus issued by the Public Analyst and it was produced and proved as Ext. C at the trial of each case. After a due consideration of the evidence adduced by the prosecutions the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that the tea that was sold by each of the accused was not proved to be adulterated tea and that therefore the offence alleged against them was not brought home to them. According they were acquitted. The correctness of the order of acquittal is challenged by the State in these two appeals.

(2.) Since the question for decision in both the appeals is the same, they can be disposed of by a common judgment. The question is whether the evidence of the Public Analyst Pw. 2 is sufficient to make out the offence charged against the accused in these two cases. As already stated, the main charge is under S.4(1)(d) of the Cochin Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Cl. (d) of sub-s. (1) runs as follows:-

(3.) The prosecution relies on the evidence of Pw. 2 to substantiate the charge that the tea purchased by Pw. 1 from each of the accused was not up to the standard of purity prescribed by R. 22 Cl. (a) and that such tea was impure and adulterated tea. After examining the sample of the tea which Pw. 1 had purchased from the accused in C.C. 1297, the opinion formed by Pw. 2 has been recorded by him in Ext. C in the following terms: