STATE BY THE FOOD INSPECTOR PANCHAYAT UNION, TIRUMARUGAL, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Vs. DURAIRAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the State, represented by the Public Prosecutor, is directed against the order of acquittal passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nagapattinam, acquitting the respondent herein, who was prosecuted for the offences under Ss. 7(i) and 16(1 -A)(i) read with S. 2(ia)(a) and (m) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

(2.) THE facts which are necessary for the disposal of the appeal are briefly as follows: P.W. 1 the Food Inspector of Thirumarugal Panchayat Union was waiting at Nadukkadai Street on 27th July, 1981 at about 9:30 a.m. for taking sample of the food for analysis. At that time, one Dakshinamurthi and Manjini were also present along with him. The respondent/accused came in a cycle and he was found carrying a can containing milk for sale. When the respondent was questioned, he said that the can contained cow's milk and buffalo's milk and the quantity was 4 litres and that he was selling the same at the rate of Rs. 2 per litre. Thereafter, P.W. 1 offered to purchase 750 ml. milk for the purpose of taking sample and sending it for analysis and also served a notice in Form VI under Ex. P1 on the respondent. P.W. 1 purchased 750 ml. of milk by paying Rs. 1.50 and obtained the receipt Ex. P2, attested by witnesses. Thereafter, he divided the same into three equal parts and pat them in three empty dry bottles, added 20 drops of formalin, corked themes sealed, tied and affixed labels as per the Rule, and then sent one sample bottle to the Public Analyst, Guindy, and the remaining two bottles to the Local (Health) Authority and got the necessary acknowledgements. The Public Analyst's report Ex. P7 was received by P.W. 1 on 13th August, 1981, which is to the effect that the sample was deficient in solids not -fat to the extent of at least 45 per cent. Thereafter, P.W. 1 filed the complaint on 22nd August, 1981 and served a notice on the respondent under S. 13(2) of the Act on 23rd August, 1981 under Ex. P8 and got the acknowledgement of the respondent under Ex. P9. On the application filed by the respondent for sending the sample for a second opinion by the Central Food Laboratory, P.W. 1 sent a requisition to the Local (Health) Authority and then produced the sample bottle in Court on 1st October, 1981. Ex. P12 is the report of the Central Food Laboratory, which is also to the effect that the sample does not conform to the standards laid down for mixed milk under the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder in that milk solids -not fat content falls below the minimum specified limit of 8.5 per cent and that the milk fat content falls below the minimum specified limit of 4.5 per cent.

(3.) THE learned trial Magistrate, for the reasons assigned in his judgment, acquitted the respondent. Hence, the State has preferred this criminal appeal.