STATE BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Vs. MARAPPAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred by the State represented by the learned Public Prosecutor against the order of the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Erode, acquitting the respondent -accused of an offence punishable under S. 7(1) read with S. 16(1)(a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

(2.) THE facts appearing in the evidence adduced on the side of the prosecution are as follows -On 20th November, 1975 at about 6 -30 a.m. P.W.1, the Food Inspector of Sathiamangalam Municipality, noticed the respondent coming in front of the Sathiamangalam Taluk Office on the Mysore Sathiamangalam Road, bringing with him milk for sale whereupon P.W. 1 after informing the respondent -accused that he was going to take sample of that milk served on him Ex.P 1, the notice in form VI and purchased 660 ml. of milk and then paid 70 paisa towards the price of the milk and obtained the receipt, Ex. P.2from the respondent -accused and then divided the milk into three parts, poured them into three bottles adding to each bottle 16 drops of formalin and then affixing to each bottle a label containing the number 52, sealed the bottles and handed over one of the bottles to the respondent -accused and sent subsequently another of the bottles to the Public Analyst along with Ex. P 3 and a report was subsequently received from the Public Analyst to the effect that the milk was adulterated in that it contained 49 % of added water. Apart from P W. 1, the prosecution examined P.W. 2, as an independent witness to corroborate the testimony of P.W.I. But P.W. 2 merely stated that he knew P.W.I, and about six months prior to his deposition, one morning the Food Inspector took sample in a bottle; Nothing else was elicited from this witness by the person who conducted the prosecution before the trial Court. This witness, who is running a tea shop, stated in cross examination that at the time when the Food Inspector seized the sample of the milk, the respondent accused was going from south to north and that the milk was in a brass bosi.

(3.) IT is extremely shocking to find that the person who conducted the prosecution did not care to elicit anything else from this witness. This witness has attested Ex.P 2. Even that fact was not elicited from that witness. The learned Magistrate found that P.W.2's evidence did not support the prosecution and did not connect the accused with the offence. It might be noted that when the accused was examined after the evidence of P.W. 1 was over, he merely refuted the evidence of P.W. 1 and even subsequently the accused, when examined by the court, did not put forward any specific case of his, but merely refuted the evidence of P.W. 1 and even subsequently the accused, when examined by the Court, did not put forward any specific case of his, but merely refuted the evidence adduced on the side of the prosecution. All that he stated was that he was threatened and his thumb impression was obtained. It might be noted that the accused never stated before the trial Court that the milk which he was taking was not for the purpose of sale, but was for his personal consumption. Only from a suggestion put to P.W. 1 in cross -examination to the effect that the accused was not bringing the milk for purpose of sale, but was taking it for his own consumption, the learned Magistrate inferred that the contention of the accused was that he was not bringing the milk for purpose of sale, but was taking it for his own consumption. The learned Magistrate after observing that the witness did not support the prosecution case, but merely stated that the sample was taken and it was poured into three bottles and that the witness did not say that he saw the accused and that sample was taken from the milk which was brought by the accused, has observed that "there is no fact in the evidence of P.W. 2 to connect the accused with the occurrence and that therefore we are left with the evidence of P;W. 1 alone about the occurrence." The learned Magistrate has then observed hat prior to the occurrence P.W.I did not see the accused selling milk and P.W. 1 further admitted that the accused is not a licensed vendor to sell milk and has further admitted that he issued Form VI notice to P.W. 1 and got his thumb impression on it and obtained a cash receipt also from the accused to which the accused has affixed his thumb impression.