STATE Vs. VIRUBATCHI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Criminal Appeal has been preferred by the State represented by the Public Prosecutor against the acquittal of the respondents by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate of Cuddalore of on offence punishable under Sections 7(ii) and 16(l)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 read with Sec. 2(ix)(k) of the Act and Rule 45 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955.

(2.) Crl. M. P. No. 3151 of 1978 is a petition under Sec. 482, Cr. P. C. for quashing the proceedings in C. C. No. 479 of 1978 on the file of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dindigul. Crl. M. P. No. 3152 of 1978 is a petition for stay of all further proceedings in C. C No. 478 of 1978 on the file on the Sub-Division Judicial Magistrate, Dindigul pending disposal of Crl. M. P. No. 3151 of 1973. The Criminal Appeal and Crl. M. P. 3151 of 1978 have been heard together inasmuch as in both the cases a common question of law arises.

(3.) The respondents in C. A. No. 848 of 1977 were prosecuted before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate of South Arcot at Cuddalore for an offence under Sec. 7(ii) read with Sec. 16(l)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act read with Sec. 2(ix)(k) of the Act read with Rule 45 of the Food Adulteration Rules on the allegation that on 16-12-1976 at 1 -30 P M. the Food Inspector purchased three bottles of Honey Rex from the first respondent (accused-1) who is a retail merchant for Rs. 14-40 for the purpose of sampling and the price of the bottles was paid to accused-1 and a cash receipt was obtained and the three bottles were duly packed and labelled and the first respondent's signature obtained on those packages and when one of the bottles was sent to the Public Analyst, the Public Analyst has certified that the sample was a misbranded one.