STATE Vs. NARAYANA KONAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed by the State against the order of acquittal passed by the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Devakottai, in C.C. No. 148 of 1976.

(2.) The accused was tried for an offence under Ss. 7 (1), 16(1) (a) (1) read with S. 2(l) (a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. According to the evidence of P.W.I, Food Inspector, on 20th February, 1976 at 8.15 a.m. at Puduvayal, he found the accused carrying buffalo milk in a brass vessel for sale. He purchased buffalo milk for RS. 1.20 from the accused and received Ex. P2, the receipt. After observing the formalities, he sent a sample to the Public Analyst for analysis. The report of the Public Analyst is Ex. P4 in the case. From Ex. P4 it is seen that the analyst has tested the buffalo milk, sent to him for analysis as per clause A. 11.14 in Appendix B to the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. He found the buffalo milk to be adulterated, in that it contained 74% of milk fat and 26% of extraneous fat not derived from the milk.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the accused in the trial Court took a point that Ex. P4, Analyst Report, shows that the sample sent to him in the instant case was analysed as per clause A. 11.14 in Appendix B to the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 and the said Rule would apply only for testing ghee. According to him, the Public Analyst should have applied C1.A.11.01.03 as that is the relevant clause to be applied for testing buffalo milk.