STATE Vs. M R TAMILARASAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State has come forward with the instant appeal aggrieved by the order of the acquittal passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Erode in C.C.No.88 of 1993 wherein the respondent stood charged for the offences punishable under Secs.7(1) and 16(a)(i) read with 2(1a)(b)(m) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and Rules 55 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules.

(2.) THE facts leading to file the instant appeal are as follows: THE respondent is running a grocery shop under the name and style of "Sri Tamil Maligai" at Door No. 125 on Arasalur Road in Salai Village. On 27.3.1993 at about 4.20 p.m. P.W.1, the Food Inspector visited the shop of the respondent. He found that the respondent is selling coriander (whole) in packets of 250 gms. He found labels over the packets. After due notice to the respondent under Ex.P.4, P.W.1 purchased three packets of Coriander (whole) as per Ex.A.5 receipt. Following the procedure laid down under Sec.11 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hear in after referred to as the Act), he packed the whole packets and sent one sample to the Public Analyst for analysis and deposited the remaining two packets with the local Health Authority. P.W.1 received Ex.P.16 report from the chemical analysts which was to the effect that the sample did not contain any extraneous matter or other edible seeds or insect, damaged matter, but contained 483 ppm of Sulphur dioxide. THE analysts was of the opinion that the food samples is adulterated since it contains 483 ppm of Sulphur dioxide which is not permitted under Rule 55 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. After following the due procedure of issuing notice to the respondent intimating him to send any one of the available samples deposited with the local Health Authority for further analysis, P.W.1 instituted criminal proceedings against the respondent.

(3.) THE food articles in the instant case is coriander (whole). It cannot be said that it had undergone any manufacturing process for the manufacturer or the seller to give the ingredients used in the product. THEre is no evidence to show that even this food article was sold under any brand name. THE oral evidence of P.W.1 is only to the effect that the packet contained the name and address of the vendor. That cannot be construed as a label as required under Rule 32 of the said Rules. THErefore, when it is evident that the food articles was labelled, it becomes incumbent upon Food Inspector to open the packets, mix up the contents and draw three samples. Non-compliance of such procedure by itself would vitiate the drawing of the sample. I am of the opinion that the learned Judicial Magistrates had rightly held that P.W.1 the Food Inspector has not followed the procedure laid down under Sec.11(1)(b) of the Act and the vitiates the proceedings.