STATE Vs. RANGASWAMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State has preferred this appeal against the judgment of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Tiruppur, acquitting the respondents-accused who were charged for offences under sections 16 (1) (a) (i) read with sections 7 (i) and 2 (1-A) (m) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

(2.) ON 29th June, 1967, P.W.1, Food Inspector of Karamadai Panchayat Union purchased about 4-10 p.m. (wrongly stated as 4-10 a.m. in the judgment) 750 grams of broken rice from A-2 who was doing business and divided the rice into three equal parts and sealed them in three packets, labelled them and sent one such packet to the Public Analyst and the remaining two to the Local (Health) Authority. The report of the Analyst, Ex.P-8, showed that the sample contained damaged grains in excess, to an extent of 64 per cent. The Food Inspector later laid the complaint against A-1, the owner and A-2 from whom he has purchased the broken rice.

(3.) THE second contention that notice under, section 13 (2) was served only on A.1 is not factually correct as I find from the records that it was served on A-2 also. Obviously the Magistrate has overlooked the thumb impression of A-2 in Exhibit B-9. THE evidence of Food Inspector also shows that it was served on A-2.