STATE BY KARAIKUDI MUNICIPALITY, FOOD INSPECTOR, KARAIKUDI MUNICIPALITY, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADRAS Vs. SELVAM AND KATHALINGA NADAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State represented by the learned Public Prosecutor, has chosen to challenge the acquittal of the Respondents, of an offence punishable under Section 7(1) and 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 2(1a)(a) and (m) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act recorded by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Devakottai, in C.C. No. 316 of 1984.

(2.) THE prosecution case will have to be stated in brief for the disposal of this Criminal Appeal. P.W.1, the Food Inspector attached to Karaikudi Municipality, visited the shop of the Respondents situated at door No. 9, Alankudiyar Street, Karaikudi, at or about 11.30 a.m. on 24 -12 -1983. The second Respondent was not available in the grocery shop then. The first Respondent who is the son of the second Respondent was present in the shop and was transacting business. P.W.1 expressed his intention to purchase cinnamon (Dalchi) known in Tamil as for the purpose of analysis. P.W.1 purchased from the first Respondent 600 grams of cinnamon after paying the sale consideration of Rs. 12/ - vouchsafed by Ex.P.2, the receipt issued. After complying with the formalities prescribed under the Act and the Rules, one part of the sample was forwarded to Public Analyst, Guindy, for test and report. Ex.P.12, the report of the Public Analyst showed, that the sample did not conform to the standard for "cinnamon whole", in respect of volatile oil content. Hence the sample was adulterated. As per clause A.05.06 Appendix B to the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, cinnamon (Dalchi whole) shall contain not less than 0.5% (v/w) of volatile oil. The sample analysed contained only 0.34% (v/w). After initiating prosecution, intimation under Section 13(2) of the Act was served on the Respondents.

(3.) THE learned Magistrate chose to acquit the Respondents on the sole ground, that the Respondents were not manufacturers of cinnamon and the prosecution had not established, that the volatile oil content in the sample, could not get reduced by natural process without interference by a human agency. The learned Magistrate took note of the evidence of P.W.1 that he was unaware of those details and only the Public Analyst should be questioned regarding the said details. The learned Magistrate also observed, that without the examination of Public Analyst, it was not possible to arrive at any definite conclusion.