STATE Vs. R. PERUMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State represented by the learned Public Prosecutor has chosen to challenge the acquittal of the Respondent herein and A.1 before the trial Magistrate, of an offence punishable under Sections 7(1) and 16(1)(a1) read with Section 2(1a)(a) and (m) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and Rule 44(e) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, recorded by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sankari in C.C. No. 198 of 1985. The Respondent was prosecuted in the same calender case along with R. Muthu, arrayed as A.2 against whose acquittal, the State has not chosen to prefer an appeal.

(2.) THE prosecution case will have to be narrated, for the disposal of this appeal. P.W.1 the Food Inspector, Edapadi Municipality visited the grocery shop of the Respondent and A.2 situated at Door No. 108, Angalamman Koil Street, Edapadi at or about 10.30 a.m. on 18.12.1984. P.W.1 found the Respondent transacting business in the grocery shop. P.W.1 revealed his identity to the Respondent and expressed his intention of obtaining sample of coconut oil for the purpose of analysis. P.W.1 learnt from the Respondent that the second accused was the owner of the shop. P.W.1 served Form VI on the Respondent and later purchased 750 m.l. of coconut oil from the Respondent after paying the sale consideration of Rs. 22.50. One of the parts of the sample sent for analysis to the Public Analyst, Guindy, revealed that the sample did not conform to the standard for coconut oil, in respect of Butyro -refractometer reading, Iodine value, saponification value and Polenske value. The Analyst also opined that the sample was found to be a mixture of about 10% of coconut oil and 90% groundnut oil. Therefore the sample was adulterated. Ex.P.4 is the report of the Analyst. After initiating prosecution intimation under, Section 13(2) of the Act was served on the Respondent and second accused.

(3.) THE trial Magistrate chose to acquit the Respondent and A.2 on two grounds: 1) The prosecution had not established connection between A.2 and the grocery shop from which sample of coconut oil had been taken. 2) The mandate of Section 13(2) of the Act had been violated for the complaint filed by P.W.1 before the trial Magistrate on 13.2.1985 was returned and represented only on 19.2.1985, But in between, on 14.2.1985 itself, intimation under Section 13(2) of the Act had been served. Therefore it must be deemed that the intimation had been served before institution of this prosecution.