STATE Vs. N AMIRTHAVEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the State is preferred against the judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Madurai, acquitting the accused/respondent who was charged for an offence under Sections 2(1a)(a)(m), 7(i) & 16(1)(a)(1) r/w Rule 5 Appendix 17.11 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act..

(2.) The case of the appellant, in-brief, is as follows: a. On 25.9.1990, at 10.00 a.m. P.W.1, Food Inspector of Madurai Corporation went to the shop, namely, Amudham Store, at door No.1/5, T.T. Road, Arapalayam, Madurai Town, along with one Periasamy, to take food sample. At that time accused No.2, respondent herein, to whom P.W.1 introduced himself, was selling the food articles. On enquiry, in the presence of P.W.2, Chinnasamy, accused No.2 revealed that the shop was belonged to the accused No.1 and he was only a sales man. P.W.1 purchased 750 gm gingili oil at Rs.24/- and got a cash receipt, Ex.P.2 for the same. After preparing Form VI to send the gingili oil for chemical analysis, P.W.1 served a copy of Form VI, Ex.P.2, on the accused No.2. Thereafter, P.W.1 divided the sample into three equal parts and after observing all the formalities, sealed them in three clean dry bottles and sent one bottle to the public analyst for analysis. Having obtained a report, wherein it is stated that the food article was adulterated, laid a complaint against both the accused. b. After perusing the materials and evidence placed on record, the trial Court acquitted both the accused. Aggrieved, the appellant has filed this appeal against the accused No.2 alone.

(3.) . The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would contend that P.W.1 has followed the procedures strictly while taking the samples and the same were sent for analysis and on the basis of the analyst report which would reveal that the sample sent by the P.W.1 is adulterated, he laid a complaint and without considering the materials and evidence and also the analyst report, the trial Court had committed an error by acquitting both the accused and therefore, the judgment of the trial court may be set aside.