VELU NAIDU Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT appears from the facts of the case that, the Food inspector, who has been examined as P. W. 1 on 30th December 1976 at about 8. 30 a. m. at Walajabad, found the respondents in possession of turmeric for public sale. P. W. 1 in order to purchase turmeric from the respondents, served Form IV notice, which is marked as Exhibit P-2 and pur-chased 900 grams of turmeric for rs. 5. 40, for which the respondents issued a cash receipt, Exhibit P-1. Thereafter, P. W. 1 divided the turmeric purchased from the respondents into three equal parts and packed and sealed them separately as required under the Rules of the Act. P. W. 1 sent one packet to the Public analyst and the two other packets to the Local Health Authority. The Public analyst in his report. Exhibit P-4 opined that the sample contained 45 parts of lead chromate per million parts. He also opined that the turmeric containing lead chromate is likely to cause grave danger to public health, as lead is a cumulative poison. IT is on the basis of this report of the Public Analyst, after serving notice under section 13 (2) of the Act along with the copy of the public Analyst's report, a case against the respondents was filed under the aforesaid sections.

(2.) WHEN the respondents were questioned with reference to the allegations levelled against them, they denied the same.

(3.) I have gone through the case file in detail and the evidence projected by the prosecution and I find that on account of the mistake committed by the prosecuting agency in issuing section 13 (2) notice before the filing of the complaint, the respondents have to be acquitted. In this case, section 13 (2) of the Act contemplates that on receipt of the result of the public analysis to the effect that the article of food is adulterated, the Local health Authority shall, after the institution of the prosecution, (italicising is mine) against the person from whom the sample of article of food was taken, forward in such manner as may be prescribed a copy of the report of the result of the analysis, informing him, that if he so desires, he may make an application to the Court within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of the copy of the report, to get the sample of the article of food kept by the local Health Authority analysed by the Central Food Laboratory. In the case, I find that the complaint a gainst the respondents under the aforesaid sections was filed on 12th April, 1977 and the notice under section 13 (2) of the Act was served on the respondents on 1st March, 1977, that is to say, prior to the filing of the complaint, which is contrary to section 13 (2) of Central Act xxxvii of 1954. In view of the legal flaw committed by the prosecuting agency by sending the notice under section 13 (2) of the Act to the respondents prior to the filing of the complaint, I am of the view that the entire prosecution has to fail. It is on this ground the acquittal of the respondents by the trial court has to be sustained and this appeal filed by the State has to be dismissed and it is accordingly dismissed.