STATE BY FOOD INSPECTOR, PARAMAKUDI Vs. BALAKRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the State is directed against the acquittal of the Respondent of offences under Section 7(1) and 16(iA)(i) read with Section 2(1a)(a)(m) Rule 27 and 44(n) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1964 by the Judicial Magistrate, Ramanathapuram in C.C. No. 656 of 1986.

(2.) THE allegation against the Respondent was that the sample of turmeric powder taken from his shop by the food inspector, P.W.1 was found to contain 5 parts of lead chromate per million parts and lead chromate is injurious to public health and as per clause A.06.20.01 in Appendix B to the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules 1955. Turmeric powder has to be free from lead chromate the grounds for acquittal being that the lead chromate could have got into the sample in the process of powdering the turmeric in the rice mill and bringing it in lead coated tin and the Respondent couldn't have intentionally adulterated it and also that the adulteration was only of a very small quantity and there was no indication that the turmeric powder was intended for human consumption. Challenging the grounds of acquittal the state has filed this appeal.

(3.) THE learned public prosecutor submitted no mens rea was necessary for the offence under the Food Adulteration Act and that the presence of lead chromate in however small a quantity would amount to adulteration and a serious view that had to be taken since the Public Analyst in his report Exhibit P. 8 had stated that the same was injurious, to health. The learned Public Prosecutor also urged that the turmeric powder which is general or commonly used for human consumption should be presumed to be for human consumption when kept in a grocery shop.