STATE Vs. ISAKKI MUTHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the State, challenging the acquittal of the respondent by the Judicial First class Magistrate, Tirunelveli in C.C. 99/85 for offences under Ss. 7(1), 16(1)(a)(i) read with S.2(ia)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and Rule 28 of the Rules framed thereunder, tried on the allegation that the sample of sweets taken from his shop, was found to contain Rhodamine-B which is not in the list of permitted coal-tar food colours to be used in food.

(2.) PW1, the Food inspector visited the sweet-stall of the respondent styled "Shanmughavilas Sweets" and found sweets in closed polythene bags kept for sale. He purchased 3 such polythene packets of sweets as samples, packed them and sent them for analysis. Ex.P.5 report of the Public Analyst showed that the sample contained 0.25 mg. Rhodamine-B per 100 gram of the sample, that Rule 28 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) prohibits the addition to food of any coal tar colours, other than those permitted therein, and that Rhodamine-B is not in the list of permitted coal tar food colours to be used in food. Hence the prosecution.

(3.) The learned Magistrate, acquitted the respondent on the ground that the sample had not been put into clean, dry, empty container and thereafter, packed but that the polythene bag with the sample inside was wrapped with paper and cardboard paper and this was a violation of Rules 14 and 16 and that polythene bags is not a 'container' within the meaning of Ru1e 14. challenging the correctness of the ground for acquittal, this appeal has been preferred by the State.