STATE BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Vs. KASIRAJAN AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the State against the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vellore, in C.C. No. 83 of 1978 acquitting the accused (respondents herein of an offence under S. 7(1) and 16(l)(a) read with S. 1(1a), 2 (a) and (f) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

(2.) The prosecution case was that the first accused, owner of an oil -shop and the second accused, the salesman, sold 825 grams of gingelly oil to the Food Inspector, (P.W. I), of Dharapadavedu Panchayat on 24th February, 1978 at 11:30 a.m. and on analysis it was found that the sample was unfit for human consumption and the free fatty acids content was in excess of the permissible quantity to the extent of 50 percent. The first respondent, owner of the oil shop, contended that he is only an accountant and that the shop belongs to the accused respondent. He has further stated that the business alone stands in his name benami. The second respondent, stated that he is not doing any business in gingelly oil. No witness was examined on their side. The learned Magistrate held rightly that the first respondent herein is the proprietor of the oil shop and that the second respondent is the sales man in the shop. But then, the trial Court held that P.W. 2 did not support the case of the prosecution and that the interested testimony of the Food Inspector alone cannot be accepted and acted upon, and therefore, gave the benefit of doubt to the accused and acquitted them.

(3.) The approach of the lower Court is wrong and it is a wrong proposition of law (sic) to say that it is committed practice that the (sic) witnesses are the local witnesses who never support the prosecution and they are invariably gained over. The evidence of the Food Inspector can be acted upon, especially when supported by the documentary evidence, Exs. PI to P3. It is wrong to think that any corroboration of P. W.1's testimony is necessary by independent witnesses.