STATE Vs. MUTHUSWAMI

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) P. W. 1, Govindan , Food inspector of Palani Municipality, purchased nine bottles of orange crush from the shop of the accused on 28-9-1977 at about 11 a. m. for analysis. He divided them into three equal parts and bottled them in three clean dry bottles and sent one such bottle to the Public Analyst and the other two to the Local Health Authority. The report of the Analyst, Ex. P. 4, showed that the sample contained saccharin in excess of the permitted limit to the extent of 120 parts per million. The learned Sub-Divisional Judicial magistrate followed a ruling of this court in State by Public Prosecutor v. Pandian Pillai , 1976 Mad LW ( Cri ) 156 and acquitted the accused on the ground that the addition of saccharin was of negligible quantity. The State challenges the orders of acquittal