STATE Vs. SOKKANNA MUDALIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGAINST the acquittal of the respondent, who stood charged under sections 16(1)(a)(i), 7(i) and 2(a) and (m) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, the State has preferred this appeal.

(2.) LIT appears from the facts of the case that P.W.1 Food Inspector, Karamadai Panchayat Union went to -Mercuri Hotel- in Karamadai on 26th August, 1977 at 10 A. m. P.W.1 introduced himself to the respondent who was sitting in the hotel at that time, and then purchased 660 ml. of buffalo milk which was kept there for sale for a sum of 0.80 P. under Exhibit P-1 cash receipt. P.W.1 also issued Form VI notice to the respondent marked as Exhibit P-2. As required by law P.W.1 after adding formalin, divided the said milk into three parts and poured the same into three dry, clean empty bottles and after observing all the formaLITies, sent one bottle to the Public Analyst and handed over the remaining two bottles to the Local Health Authority. The Public Analyst, in his report, Exhibit P8 has opined that the sample was deficient in solids-not-fat to the extent of at least 71%. Therefore P.W.1 laid a charge-sheet against the respondent under the afore-said sections.

(3.) THE trial Court on the evidence projected by THE prosecution, came to the conclusion that the sample of buffalo-s milk taken by P.W.1 from the hotel was kept only as an ingredient for preparing tea or coffee and the prosecution has not brought home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. With these observations the respondent was acquitted. It is against this acquittal, this appeal has been preferred.