STATE Vs. THIYAGARAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is preferred by the State through the Food Inspector, Erode Municipality challenging the order of acquittal passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.3, Erode, in S.T.C. No.2799 dated 27.03.1998, acquitting the accused for the offences under Sections 7 (1) and 16 (1) (a) (i) read with 2(1a) (a) and (m) the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

(2.) THE allegation against the accused is that he was running a business under the name and style of "Shree Bannari Amman Milk Depot" at Erode. It is alleged that on 27.11.1996 at 1.40 a.m., P.W.1, who is the Health and Food Inspector, along with P.W.3, who is the Health Supervisor, inspected the business premises of the accused. It is claimed by P.W.1 that he was authorized by G.O. Ms. No.571 dated 15.4.1991 to take food samples. Ex.P.2 is the said G.O. THErefore P.W.1 along with P.W.3 went to the business premises of the accused on 27.11.1996 at 11.40 a.m. and at that time the accused, who is the proprietor of the said business concern, was present and found in possession of 10 litres of milk in a 15 litre plastic cane. P.W.1 suspected that the milk may be adulterated and therefore he decided to take samples from the shop of the accused. P.W.1 called P.W.2 who was running a provision stores adjacent to the Milk Depot to be present at the time of taking samples. THEreafter P.W.1 introduces himself to the accused and prepared Form VI copies, Ex.P.3, in duplicate and obtained signature of the accused and the witness P.W.2. THEreafter P.W.1, after following the mandatory requirements contemplated under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, had taken sample of Buffalo milk of 750 milli litres and stirred the milk. He purchased the same by paying an amount of Rs.8.25. THE Cash Receipt is Ex.P.4. THEreafter, P.W.1 had taken three bottles and filled those bottles with milk carefully and after putting Formalin drops into the milk, he once again stirred the milk and sealed the bottles. THEreafter, P.W.1 affixed the specimen seals containing the particulars of each and every bottle and pasted the same and wrapped all the bottles with a paper and pasted the same. After following other mandatory requirements, P.W.1 prepared From VII and took five copies and sent the sample bottle with Form VII through the Southern Roadways Parcel Services, Madurai to the Analyst, Guindy, Chennai, for analysis. Ex.P.5 is the coopy of Form VII, Ex.P.7 is the parcel receipt. P.W.1 also sent intimation, Ex.P.6, with one portion of the sample milk to the local Health Authority, and obtained acknowledgment from them.Ex.P.8 is the acknowledgment. On 28.11.1996, he sent a copy of Form VII by Registered Post along with the acknowledgment card to the Analyst, Guindy, Chennai. Ex.P.9 is the acknowledgment card. THE Analyst after examining the sample, sent Analysis Report, Ex.P.10, dated 21.12.1996 bearing No.2615/96-97.P.W.1 also sent a copy of the Analyst's Report, Ex.P.10 to the local Health Authority. It is stated in Ex.P.10 Analysis Report that the said food falls below the prescribed standard in respect of the Milk Solids-Not-Fat content. Hence the sample is adulterated as per Section 2 (1a)(a) and (m) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. THEreafter, P.W.1 sent a requisition letter to the Joint Director, Public Health for according sanction to prosecute the accused. Ex. P.11 is the letter sent by P.W.1 after obtaining sanction, Ex.P 12, dated 29.1.1997, P.W.1 filed the case against the accused on 4.3.1997 for offences under Sections 7(1) and 16(1)(a)(i) read with 2(1a) (a) and (m) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. P.W.1 also sent a notice under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 to the accused on 10.3.1997 by registered post with acknowledgement card. THE postal acknowledgement is Ex.P.13. THE copy of Section 13(2) notice is marked as Ex.P.14. THE accused has not preferred any appeal for sending the sample for re-analysis.

(3.) THE learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), M.K.Subramanian, contended that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt by adducting clear, cogent and consistent evidence. THE learned Government Advocate also pointed out that the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused mainly on the ground that there is no evidence to the effect that P.W.1, Food and Health Inspector, at the time of taking samples of milk had stirred the milk effectively and therefore there is contravention of mandatory requirements under the Prevention Food Adulteration Act. THE perusal of the entire materials available on record clearly shows that P.W.1 stated that at the time of taking samples of milk he had effectively stirred it and therefore, as rightly put forward by the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side), the finding of the learned Magistrate is wrong and against the materials available on record.