STATE BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Vs. SANTHANAKRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal preferred by the State against the order of acquittal of the Respondent for an offence under Ss.7(l) and 16(1) (a) (1) read with Section 2(9) (k) and R. 37 and 45 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

(2.) THE Prosecution case is that on 14th March, 1979 at about 1:15 P.M. in Chinnakadai Bazaar in Salem Town, the Respondent accused who is the owner of Vasantha Stores, was selling honey in large quantities packed in bottles. The Food Inspector (P.W.1) purchased one bottle of honey from the Respondent for Rs. 10 under receipt Ex.P2. Ex.P1 is the demand notice. P.W.1 then observed the formalities for taking samples and sent one of them to the Public Analyst who found the honey to be freely diluted with water and hence the charge. The contention of the accused was that it was not meant for human consumption, but it was only for 'Abishegam'. The trial Magistrate found that the label pasted to the bottles containing honey showed that they were intended for(sic) "Abishegam" and, therefore, held that the prosecution did not prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and consequently acquitted the accused. Hence the appeal by the State.

(3.) WHAT then is the order to be passed in this case? As already stated, this Respondent appears to be selling large quantities of honey bottles by simply labelling it dubiously as for 'Abhishegam'. Admittedly, on the date of the inspection by P.W.1, the Respondent had in his possession 1920 bottles of honey and the price was Rs. 10 per bottle. Therefore, the offence requires condign punishment having regard to the manner in which it is perpetrated.