STATE Vs. GANGARAMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal filed by the Food Inspector, Corporation of Coimbatore, through the Public Prosecutor, is directed against the judgment in C.A. No. 287 of 1985 on the; file of the First Additional Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, acquitting the respondents for the offence under Sections 7(1), 16(1)(a)(i)read with Section 2(1 a) (a)(m) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.

(2.) Originally, the respondents faced the trial in respect of the above said offences in C.C. No. 352 of 1985, on the file of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Coimbatore, in which they were convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. Against this judgment, the respondents filed an appeal in the 1 Additional Sessions Judge, Coimbatore in C.A. No. 287 of 1985, which ended in acquittal as referred to earlier.

(3.) Mr. B. Sriramulu, learned Public Prosecutor contended that the grounds on which the judgment of acquittal was rendered by the lower appellate Court in C.A. No. 287 of 1985 was not valid in law. The following three grounds have been given in the said judgment for acquitting the respondents.(i) The Food Inspector after taking the sample instead of sending it to the Court sent the same to the local authority. This is the violation of the relevant Sections of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.(ii) Under Section 13(2) of the Act, after filing of the complaint, the notice under Section 13(2) must be served immediately. In the instant case, the notice was served after five days.(iii) Of course Public Prosecutor report shows that the article referred was taken as a sample, was found to be adulterated, however, the public analyst was not examined. This is also fatal to the case of prosecution.