STATE BY FOOD INSPECTOR Vs. GANAPATHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the State against the judgment made in C.C. No.584 of 1982 on the file of the Court of Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Villupuram, acquitting the accused of the offence punishable under section I 7(1) and 16(1) (a) (i) read with section 2(ia) (1) and (in) of the Prevention of Food I Adulteration Act.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that the Food Inspector P.W.l attached K to Chengi Panchayat Union inspected the shop belonging to the first accused at No.241 Singavaram Road, Chengi on 25.10.1982 at 10.30 a.m. and purchased sample of V. Ghee Brand Agmark Ghee weighing 450 gr. for a sum of Rs.18.00 under Ext. P.l. Than he divided the sample of ghee into three parts sealed them in clean dry separate bottles J and sent the sample for analysis. After receiving the report under Ext. P.6, he filed the charge sheet on 18.12.1982. Learned Magistrate acquitted the accused on the ground that P.W.l has filed the complaint on 18.12.1982 and on the same date, he issued the notice under section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The | evidence of P.W.l is that he filed the charge-sheet in the afternoon in the court on 18.12.1982 and on the same date at 3 p.m. he issued notice under section 13(2) of the Act. But there is no evidence on the records to show that the charge sheet was filed in the afternoon of 18.2.1982. It is only the oral evidence of P.W.l section 13(2) of the Act reads as follows :

(3.) From the records, it is seen that notice under section 13(2) of the, Act appears to have been sent on the same date i.e. on 18.12.1982, the date of filing | of the complaint. As per section 13(2) of the Act, it should be sent only after institution, of the prosecution against the person from whom the sample of article of food was taken. It is also possible that P.W.l could have sent the notice under section 13(2)1 of the Act even previous to the institution of the case on 18.12.1982 because the records of the court below would not show that the case was instituted in the afternoon. Therefore, there is a doubt whether the notice under section 13(2) of the Act was served after the institution of the case. Therefore, the lower court is justified in giving the benefit of doubt since the institution of the case is in violation of section 13(2) of the Act. When the prosecution has not established, the factum of adulteration as per the procedure under section 13(2) of the Act, the prosecution cannot be laid against the manufacturer, the second accused. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt. I do not find any infirmity in the judgment of the lower court and I confirm the same. The appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.