STATE Vs. SUBRAMANIAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is filed by the State challenging the judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Bhavani made in C.C.No.59/94 dated 19.7.1995 acquitting the respondent herein from the charges under Section 7(1) and 16(1)(a)(i) r/w Section 2(1a)(a)(b) and (m) and Rule 23 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

(2.) The case as put forth before the lower court can be stated as follows: On 25.12.1993 at about 11.00 a.m., P.W.1, Gopalarathinam, who was the Food Inspector attached to Ammapettai Panchayat Union, proceeded along with his assistant P.W.2, Sengodan to "Sani Sandai" for taking food sample. They found that the respondent/accused was selling Redgram Dal in a public place and P.W.1 introduced himself. After filling up Form 6 under Ex.P.1 and after due notice to the accused, he purchased 750 grams of "Redgram Dal" by paying the consideration therefor under Ex.P.2 receipt and the samples were properly sealed, part of which were sent to local health centre, while the rest of the samples were sent for analysis at Chennai under due acknowledgement. On analysis, a report was received, which was marked as Ex.P.14, where the Analyst gave his opinion that he found artificial colouring matter and the same was prohibited and it contains coal tar food colour : Tartrazine. On receipt of the report, the Food Inspector lodged a complaint as one he has committed an offence punishable under Section 7(i) and 16(1)(a)(i) r/w 2(ia)(a)(b) and (m) and Rule 23 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

(3.) In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined three witnesses and marked 16 exhibits. The accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The accused/respondent flatly denied the same as false. No defence witness was examined. After considering the rival submissions and scrutiny of the materials available, the court below has found that he was not guilty of any one of the charges levelled against him and acquitted him. Hence, aggrieved by the said Judgment, the State has preferred this appeal.