STATE Vs. C SAMBANDAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal appeal has been filed by the State against the acquittal of the respondent-accused, by the learned Sessions Judge, East Thenjavur Dn. , Nagapattinam in Crl. Ap. No. 42 of 1977, which had been preferred by the accused against his conviction by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nagapattinam in C. C. 589 of 1976 of an offence punishable under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three months and fine of Rs. 500 imposed for that conviction.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution was this; P. W. 1, the Food Inspector of Nan-nilam Panchayat purchased 660 ml. of milk from the accused's tea shop on Kumbakonam road at Kolathumangudy village at 11 a! m, on 7-9-1976 for 84 paise, after serving a form VI notice, Ex. P-l, under the acknowledgment, Ex. P-3 and obtaining the receipt, Ex. P-2 for the said purchase. P. W. 1 observed the necessary formalities viz. , dividing the milk purchased by him into three equal parts, putting them in three separate clean bottles and sealing them and handing over one of the said bottles to the accused and sending one bottle to the Court and the third to the Public Analyst.

(3.) THE Analyst's report, Ex. P-4 showed that the milk was deficient in solids-not-fat to the extent of at least 76 per cent. sub-sequently, the accused has been prosecuted under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The accused stated that he was not running the tea shop and it was run by his brother-in-law Kalyanasundaram, examined as D. W. 1. D, W. 1 stated that he was running the tea shop and that the sample milk was taken from out of the milk which was being boiled in a vessel in the tea shop and that the milk was not intended for sale, but was only intended for preparing tea. It was suggested to P. W. 1 that the accused's signatures were obtained in Exs. p-2 and P-3 in his house and not in the tea shop. The learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate accepted the evidence of P. W. 1 that it was the accused who sold the milk to P. W. 1 under the receipt Ex. P-2 and that Exs. p-l to P-3 had been signed by the accused only in the tea shop where the milk was purchased by P. W. 1. He accepted the Public Analyst's Report Ex. P-4, and found that the accused sold adulterated milk. He accordingly convicted and sentenced the accused as mentioned above. But, on appeal, the learned Sessions Judge of East thenjavur Dn. , at Nagapattinam, found that the sample of milk had been taken from out of the milk that was being boiled in the tea shop and that it was not intended to be sold and therefore, there was no sale of milk as a primary food in this case. Accordingly, he acquitted the accused and set aside the conviction and sentences of rigorous imprisonment and fine awarded to the accused by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate.