STATE Vs. RAJAMBAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is by the State through the Food Inspector, Perambalur. The respondent-accused stood charged under Secs.7(1) and 16(a)(i) read with Sec.2(1a)(a)(b)(c) and (m) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").

(2.) THE case of the prosecution against the accused is that the Food Inspector inspected the shop of the accused on 21.8.1984 at 4.00 p.m. and he took sample of turmeric powder kept there for sale and on an analysis of the same it was found to be adulterated and therefore the accused is liable to be convicted and sentenced under the abovesaid sections.

(3.) NOW in the appeal it is contended that the judgment of the court below is erroneous. Upon reading the judgment I find that the court below has found that for two reasons the prosecution case is defective. One is that the Public Analyst has received the sample on 27.8.1984 and he has sent his report in Form No.III to the Local Health Authority only on 25.9.1984 and during the 29 days in between the said two dates it is not known what all happened. The other is that while the sample has been taken on 21.8.1984 the Public Analyst has received the sample only on 27.8.1984. This show a delay in sending the sample.