LAWS(MAD)-1981-4-38

STATE Vs. RENGASAMY NAIDU

Decided On April 27, 1981
STATE Appellant
V/S
RENGASAMY NAIDU Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by State against the acquittal of the respondent by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate of Madurai

(2.) A complaint was laid against the respondent in C.C. No. 3 of 1977 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai by the Food Inspector on the allegation that the accused Rengaswami Naidu, who is the respondent herein, had in his possession cow's milk for the purpose of sale, offered it for sale and also sold the same in front of door No. 5. Thirupparankundram Road, Madurai at 4.30 p.m. on 11-9-1976 to Thiru S. Muthuswami, Food Inspector, Madurai Corporation, Madurai, that the cow's milk on analysis by the public Analyst for Madurai Corporation was found to contain 4.5% of solids-not-fat as against 8.5% of solids-not-fat prescribed under the prevention of Food Adulteration Rules and hence deficient in solids-not-fat to the extent of at least 47% and was therefore adulterated and that thereby the accused had committed an offence under Sections 7(ia)(a) and (m), 7(i), 16(1-A) and 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (Act 37 of 1954) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) read with clause A. 11.01.11 in Appendix B to R. 5 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules)

(3.) THEREAFTER, P.W. 1 divided the milk into three equal parts and poured each part into three separate bottles which were empty, dry and clean and added 18 drops of formalin to each of the bottles, corked them, tied a twine to them and affixed label No. 19876 on each of them after obtaining the signature of the accused therein. THEREAFTER he again wrapped each of the bottles with a thick paper and tied thein each with strings and obtained the signature of the accused on the three separate labels and affixed on the labels and outer cover to each of the bottles. He then recorded the statement of the accused which has been exhibited as Ex. P. 3. The accused signed in Ex. P. 3. He prepared the mahazar Ex. P. 4 in which also the accused signed