STATE (THE FOOD INSPECTOR, AVANASHI) Vs. ESWARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State has preferred this appeal against the judgment of the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Tiruppur acquitting the respondent-accused who has been charged for offences punishable under Ss. 16(1)(a)(i) and (2)(ia) and (m), and 7(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

(2.) ON 14th December, 1976, P.W. I, the Food Inspector, Avanashi, purchased 375 grammas of coconut oil for Rs. 6.00 from the accused-respondent (who was in his maligai shop), for analysis. He divided the oil into 3 equal Parts and sealed them in three clean dry bottles and sent one such bottle to the Public Analyst and the other two bottles to the Local (Health) Authority. The report of the Analyst showed that the sample contained a mixture of about 90 per cent of coconut oil and about 10 per cent of other oils. The learned Magistrate who tried the case, acquitted the accused on the grounds (1) that the sample was not intended for human consumption; and (2) that Rules 7 and 18 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules have not been followed. The State has preferred this appeal.

(3.) THE other contention is that Rr.7 and 18 have not been followed. From the Judgment of the Magistrate, I am unable to gather as to how R.7 has not been followed. In fact, Learned Counsel for the respondent-accused has not raised any contention in regard to R.7, but he strenuously contended that R.18 has not been followed. R.18 says that a copy of the memorandum and a specimen impression of the seal used, to sail the packet shall be sent to the public analyst separately by registered post to him or delivered to him or to any person authorised by him. Most unfortunately, we do not have the evidence of P.W. I as to whether he sent the memorandum with the specimen seal as required under R.18. But he has proved Ex. P4 which is the copy of the memorandum with the specimen seal. What is contended before me by the learned Public Prosecutor is that any document purported to be a report signed by the Public Analyst, unless it has been superseded, may be used as evidence of the facts stated therein in any proceedings under the Act under S. 13(5) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Now, Ex. P5, the Analyst's report very clearly shows that the Analyst found that the seal fixed on the container of the sample tallied with the specimen impression separately sent by the Food Inspector and the sample was in a condition fit for analysis. It is therefore, obvious that the Public Analyst has. acted in accordance with the rules and he has compared the specimen impression with the seal on the container. Therefore, the leaned Magistrate was in error when he says that no postal receipt or acknowledgment has been produced to show that R.18 was complied with in this case. It is clear that in this case R. 18 has been observed.