STALE, BY FOOD INSPECTOR KADAIYANALLUR MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADRAS Vs. SYED AND P. PONNAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these appeals have been filed by the State represented by learned Public Prosecutor challenging the acquittal of the respective Respondents, in C.C. Nos. 223 and 224 of 1984 respectively, on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tirunelveli, for offences under Sections 7(1) and 16(1)(a)(1) read with 2(1a)(a) and (m) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Since the issue involved in both these cases is the same, these two appeals are disposed of together by a common judgment. In C.A. No. 226 of 1986, the Food Inspector, Kadayanallur Municipality bought milk from the Respondent at 6.30 a.m. on 23 -12 -1983, while the latter was selling milk to the public from his shop situated in door No. 264, Krishnapuram Main Road, Kadayanallur. The milk bought from the Respondent, after observing all the formalities prescribed under the provisions of Food Adulteration Act and the Rules, was forwarded to the Public Analyst, Guindy for report. Ex.P.6, report of the Public Analyst revealed that the sample milk was deficient in solids -not -fat to the extent of at least 44 per cent. The sample also was deficient in fat to the extent of at least 22 per cent. After receipt of the report Ex.P.6, prosecution was launched, subsequent to the intimation to the Respondent under Section 13(2) of the Act. In Criminal Appeal No. 229 of 1986, the Food Inspector, Kadaiyanallur Municipality bought milk from the Respondent at 6 a.m. on 23 -12 -1983 from the premises bearing door No. 264 Krishnapuram Main Road, Kadaiyanallur when he was distributing milk to the members of the public. The sample milk seized was sent to the Public Analyst, Guindy for analysis and report. Ex.P.8 report of the Analyst revealed that the sample was deficient in solids -not -fat to the extent of at least 35 per cent and was also deficient in fact to the extent of at least 68 per cent. As provided under the provisions of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, intimation under Section 13(2) of the Act was forwarded to the Respondent, after initiation of prosecution.

(2.) THE only ground on which the trial Magistrate had acquitted the respective Respondents, was that there had been violation of the provisions of Section 11(1)(c)(i) of the Act. The trial Magistrate held, that P.W.1, the Food Inspector, who had launched the prosecutions, had not stated, that he had sent one of the parts for analysis to the Public Analyst under intimation to the local health authority, and therefore the mandate of Section 11(1)(c)(i) had been violated. Mr. R. Shanmugasundaram, learned Additional Public Prosecutor contended that the verdict of the trial Magistrate was erroneous since in spirit the provisions of Section 11(1)(c)(i) had been complied with. He based his arguments on the admitted evidence that the remaining two parts were sent to the local health authority along with Form VII.

(3.) I have carefully considered the contentions of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor as well as Mr. K.S. Rajagopalan. With respect I am unable to agree with the view expressed by Sharad Manohar, J. of the Bombay High Court.