FOOD INSPECTOR PONDICHERRY Vs. T S SUBRAMANIA IYER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the State of Pondicherry against the order of acquittal of the accused by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Pondicherry for offences under Sections 7 (1) and 7 (2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.

(2.) THE prosecution case is the first accused is in-charge of the hotel Messrs. Mathru Cafe. The second accused is the licencee of the said hotel. P. W. 1, the Food Inspector, inspected the said hotel on 23-121974, at about 4-15 a. m. The first accused was running the business at that time. After disclosing his identity, P. W. 1 purchased sample of rose milk and paid the cost of Rs. 3. 75 and obtained a receipt. After observing the formalities, P. W. 1 sent one sample to the public analyst on 24-12-1974. The report of the Public Analyst states that the rose milk is deficient in solids not fat to the extent of at least 56 per cent and is also deficient in fat to the extent of 48 per cent and also contains non-permitted basic coal tar dye Rhodamine B. The report of the Public Analyst is marked as Ex. P. 3 in the case.

(3.) THE learned Magistrate acquitted (him) on the ground that sample was taken on 23-12-74, and it was sent to the Public Analyst on 2412-1974, without keeping the sample in ice or any other refrigerator. The Public Analyst, according to Ex. P. 3, received the sample on 2412-1974. Even after receiving the sample, analysis was made only on 26-12-1974. As there is a delay of two days in analysing the sample sent to him, the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused on the ground that there is a delay of analysis and the Public Analyst has not stated in his report what was the condition of the rose milk at the time of analysis. But in the report itself, the Public Analyst has stated that the sample was fit for analysis.