PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Vs. RAMACHANDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the Public Prosecutor against the acquittal of the respondent by the Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, for an offence under Secs. 7 and 16 (1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

(2.) ON 22-10-1960, at about 9 a. m. the accused brought milk in three cans to the Government Hospital at Srivaikuntam. The three cans were placed before the Medical Officer for check. P. W. 1 purchased 3/8 measures from the accused out of one of the cans. The accused told that the milk was a mixture of cow and buffalows milk. P. W. 1 paid 0. 42 no and obtained a receipt, Ex. P-l, attested by the doctor and his maistry, who were present at the time of sampling. P. W. 1 also explained that some independent people, who were also present, refused to attest. P. W. 1 divided the sample in three equal parts and sent one for analysis. The analyst sent a report, Ex. P-3, according to which, the sample contained 4. 3% of fat and 6. 8% of solids-not-fat. The sample contained' 24% of added water as calculated from solids not-fat. P. W. 2, the doctor also corroborated the evidence of P. W. i. The accused pleaded that the milk was not taken in his presence, and that he was not guilty, and that the case was foisted on him due to enmity.

(3.) THE Sub Divisional Magistrate, who tried the case, accepted the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 2 and the Analyst's certificate, and found that the accused was guilty of an offence punishable Under Section 16 (1) (a) of the Food Adulteration Act read with Rule 44 (b) of the Rules framed thereunder. He convicted and sentenced the accused to pay a fine of Rs. 200, and in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. On appeal, the Irarneri Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the accused. He found that the standard prescribed for buffalo-milk cannot be applied for a mixture of cow's milk and buffalo's milk, and that the trial Court was wrong in its conclusion.