STATE Vs. T R M SUBRAMANIAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the State against the acquittal of the accused for the sale of adulterated turmeric. P. W. 1, the Food Inspector, Dharapuram Municipality, inspected the shop of the accused in door No. 84, Big Bazaar, Dharapuram on 26-2-1973 at about 2. 30 P. M. and purchased from him, for the purpose of analysis, 600 grams, out of a stock of 6 kilo grams of turmeric, at a cost of Rs. 1. 80. The usual formality of packing the sample was gone through. One of the samples sent to the analyst was certified to contain 20% of poisonous lead as against permitted limit of 10%. Consequently, the accused was charged under Section 16 (1) (a) (i) read with Sections 7 (1) and 2 (i) (1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

(2.) THE learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Erode who tried the case acquitted the accused on the ground that turmeric rhizome, to which category the sample belonged, was not an article of food, and secondly, the accused had stored and exhibited for sale turmeric powder separately.

(3.) FOR the State, it is contended by the learned Public Prosecutor that the conclusion of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate that the accused had stored and exhibited turmeric powder separately for sale was not correct because there was no evidence to the effect. This contention has to be accepted for nowhere has P. W. 1, the Food Inspector, stated that the accused was having any other stock of turmeric, except the 6 kilograms from which the sample was obtained, for sale to the public as an article of food.