THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Vs. SAMI VENKATARAMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the acquittal of the respondent for an offence under S. 16 (1) (b) in that the accused prevented the Food Inspector from taking a sample as authorized under this Act. The facts of the case are these The accused is a licensed ghee dealer. On the day of the occurrence, that is 9th May 1956, P. W. 1, the Sanitary Inspector accompanied by another Sanitary Inspector, P. W. 2; and two other persons, went to the shop of the accused for taking a sample of the ghee. But there was no ghee available in the shop The Sanitary Inspector did not find even an oven there for melting butter. He therefore asked the accused as to where he melted the butter. The accused took him to his house and showed him the oven where he melted the butter. He, P. W. 1. then found three tins, one of which alone contained two viss of ghee. He asked for a sample out of the said ghee. The accused refused. Then the witness attempted to take a sample; but the accused prevented him from doing so by pouring the entire ghee in the oven. The question is where, on these facts, it can be stated, that an offence under S. 16 (1) (b) is made out. On the very evidence of P. W. 1. it is clear that he went over to the shop for purchasing the sample. Because he did not find even an oven there, he asked as a matter of information as to where the oven was. The accused then took him to his house; and there, he P. W. 1, found two viss of ghee in one of the open tins when the other two tins were empty. There is no proof that these two viss of ghee which were kept in the house was intended for sale If they were in the shop, then it would be presumed to be for sale Only if there was ghee or butter which was intended for sale and of which the sample is asked for by the Sanitary Inspector and if that was prevented from being taken, then an offence under S. 16 (1) (b) would have been committed. But that is not established in this case, as the ghee that was in the house has not been proved to be for sale.

(2.) IF the Additional Sessions Judge has acquitted the accused on this ground, there will be no trouble whatsoever. But the learned Judge seems to have based the acquittal on another ground namely, that two independent and respectable witnesses have not been taken, as required by S. 10(7) of the Act But S. 10(7) comes into play only when samples are taken. It is introduced by way of guarantee that the Sanitary Inspector hat taken the particular sample from the accused. But when no sample has been given, S. 10 (7) does not come in at all There is nothing to comply with the provisions of S. 10 (7) in such circumstances. If the acquittal was based on this ground, it is only liable to be set aside. But the ground given are untenable. However, as I have pointed out, that on the merits of the case there is no proof that the Prosecuting Inspector went into the house of the accused who took him to show only the place of melting. The ghee that the accused had was not intended for sale, and therefore no offence was made out under S. 16 (1) (b). On this ground, the accused is entitled to an acquittal; and so, I would not interfere with the order of acquittal passed by the lower Court. This appeal is dismissed