LAWS(MAD)-1991-9-87

STATE Vs. DHANARAJU

Decided On September 20, 1991
STATE Appellant
V/S
DHANARAJU Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the State is filed against the acquittal of the respondent tried by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ariyalur for an offence under Secs. 7(1) and 16(1)(a)(i) read with Sec.2(ia)(a) and (m) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(2.) P.W.1 the Food Inspector, Pullambadi took a sample of Gingelly Oil from the grocery shop of the respondent in Tirumalappadi Road. The formalities required under the Act were complied with. On analysis, it was found that the sample did not conform to the standards of Gingelly oil in respect of Bellier Test and Value and also that the sample answered the test for the presence of castor oil. Hence the prosecution.

(3.) THE sample taken is Gingelly oil. According to the learned Magistrate, Rule 19 requires preservatives to be added by the Food Inspector to the sample taken and Rule 59 permits addition of anti-oxidants to edible oil mentioned in the proviso to the Rule in the percentage of the concentration mentioned therein. THE learned Magistrate has hold that Rules 19,58 and 59 read with together require the Food Inspector to add antioxidants to edible oil and failure to do the same entitled the respondent for an acquittal. THE above position of law is totally erroneous. Rule 19 permits addition of preservatives as prescribed from time to time to samples taken for the purpose of analysis, so that the sample may be maintained in a condition suitable for analysis. Rule 20 deals with the preservative in respect of milk, cream and other samples mentioned therein. Rule 21 requires the nature and quantity of the preservative to be noted on the sample. Part X of the Rules, deals with preservatives which are defined, classified and the use of which, is also regulated. Part XII of the Rules dealing with Anti-oxidants Emulsifying and Stabilising and Anticaking agents, has nothing to do with samples taken for analysis. Rules 58 and 59 define and restrict the use of antioxidants in the preparation and manufacture of food for sale. Similarly Part XI deals with poisonous metals, Part XI-A deals with crop contaminants and naturally occurring toxic substances, Part XIII-A carry over of food additives, and Part XIV deals with insecticides and pesticides. All these parts relate to preparation and manufacture of food for sale. THEy do not have any relation to taking or preserving a sample for analysis. THE learned Magistrate was wrong in linking Rule 19 with Rules 58 and 59. THE acquittal is erroneous.