STATE Vs. PAULRAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) State has come forward with this appeal aggrieved by the order of acquittal of the Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Trichy in C.C.215/93 acquitting the accused under Section 7(1), 16(1)(a), 2(1-a)(a)(m) and Rule 23 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

(2.) Facts leading to the present appeal (filed under Section 378 Crl.P.C) could be stated thus: Respondent/Accused is running grocery shop (kspif fil) under the name and style "Saravana Stores" in Door No.112, Sangiliandapuram Main Road, Trichy. P.W.1-Chandran-Food Inspector is authorised to take sample of food. He visited the shop of the respondent on 2.12.92-9.15 a.m, P.W.1 introduced himself to the respondent. Further P.W.1 informed the respondent about his proposal to take sample of Red Gram Dhall for which the respondent has consented. P.W.1-Food Inspector has called for one Kuppusamy to be the witness. Form-VI Notice (Ex.P3) was duly served upon the respondent. After duly serving Form-VI Notice, P.W.1 paid cash (as per Ex.P4-Cash Receipt) and purchased 750 grams of Red Gram Dhall. Following the procedure laid down under Section 11 of Food Adulteration Act, he divided the same into three bottles and labelled them, affixing the seal. On the sample bottles, signature of the accused was obtained. One sample bottle was sent to the Public Analyst in Palayamkottai on the same day-2.12.92. Remaining two sample bottles were deposited with the Local (Health) Authority. P.W.1 -Food Inspector received Ex.P9-Acknowledgement from the Local ( Health) Authority.

(3.) On 31.12.92 Form-III-Public Analyst Report (Ex.P10) was received. The Public Analyst found that the sample is adulterated as it contains a cool tar colour TARTARAZINE. The colour substance TARTARAZINE is prohibited under Rule 23 of the Rules framed under the Food Adulteration Act.