STATE Vs. SUNDARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal preferred by the State through the Public Prosecutor for the Food Inspector, Erode Municipality, against the order of acquittal in C.C. No. 1015 of 1987 in respect of the offence under Section 7(i) read with Sections 16(1)(a)(i), 2(ia)(a)(m) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

(2.) P.W.1, the Food Inspector attached to the Erode Municipality, took the sample of Milk from the respondent while he was carrying a milk can, on 30-6-1987 at 09.00 a.m. After observing all the formalities, under Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and after payment of the sale price of the Milk to the respondent, the sample was taken and was sent for analysis. On receipt of the sample, the Analyst analysed the same and sent a report on 23-7-87 stating that the milk which was analysed, was found to be adulterated. So, on the basis of the report of the Analyst, P.W. l filed complaint on 3-8-1987. Thereafter, he served a notice under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act on 10-8-1987. On behalf of the prosecution, the Food Inspector was examined as P.W. 1 and Exs. P. 1 to P. 12 were marked, P.W. 1 while deposing in the Court, stated that he took sample of the milk after observing the required formalities as contemplated under the relevant rules, paid the cash, obtained the cash receipt from the respondent and thereafter, he sent the sample for analysis and it was found to be adulterated and on the basis of the receipt of the said report, he filed a complaint and served notice on the respondent.

(3.) On the side of the respondent, two witnesses were examined to speak about the fact that the milk was kept by the respondent not for the purpose of sale but for taking to the house of D.W. 1, his sister, for consumption, and for domestic purpose.