FOOD INSPECTOR Vs. MOHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appeal from acquittal.

(2.) Prosecution was under the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act for sale of adulterated buffalo milk. There were three accused persons in the case. The Trial Court acquitted the second and third accused but convicted the first accused under S.16(1)(a)(i) read with S.7(1) of the Act and sentenced him to simple imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 1000/-. In the appeal filed by the first accused the lower appellate court acquitted him. This appeal is from that acquittal.

(3.) Both the courts below found that the first accused sold buffalo milk to Pw. 1, the Food Inspector. The acquittal of the first accused by the lower appellate court would appear to be on the sole ground that there was no satisfactory evidence to show that R.18 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, which provides (i) that copy of memorandum and specimen impression of the seal should be separately sent to the Public Analyst and (ii) that they should be sent by registered post or delivered to him or any person authorised by him, had been adhered to in the present case.