STATE Vs. HARIRAMA NADAR AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is by the State against the acquittal of the respondents by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tuticorin of the offence under Ss. 7, 16(1) read with S. 2(1)(n) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The facts of the case are P.W. 1, the Food Inspector saw the 1st respondent with a syrup bottle for sale at the main road of Arumuganeri on 24th June, 1976. He served Ex. P -1 notice on the 1st respondent and purchased 600 ml of the syrup and sealed the contents in 3 bottles and sent one sample to the Analyst for analysis. The report of the Analyst showed that the sample contained 300 parts per million parts of saccharin and therefore, the revision petitioners were charged for the offence aforesaid.

(2.) THE learned Magistrate found that there is nothing in the evidence of P.W. 1 to implicate the 2nd respondent and adverting to the report of the Analyst stated that the sample contained only 300 parts per million parts of saccharin and that the percentage is so negligible that no case is made out against the respondents and he discharged them. In discharging them he relied on the decision of this Court in Public Prosecutor v. Pandian Pillai : 1976 L.W. (Crl.) 156.

(3.) IN Public Prosecutor v. Pandian Pillai : 1976 L.W. (Crl.) 156Krishnaswamy Reddy, J. stated that he was not inclined to interfere with the order of acquittal for the reason that addition of saccharin was so negligible that no prudent officer will take action to prosecute the respondents. A reading of Rule 44G and Rule 47 shows that addition of saccharin in syrup is prohibited. With respect I must point out that I am not in agreement with the observations of Krishnaswamy Reddy, J., for the simple reason that the Act does not provide for exemption of marginal or borderline variation of the standards from the operation of the Act, and in such circumstances, to contend that the variation is negligible would virtually alter the standard itself fixed under the Act. As regards A -2 there is a clear finding that there is nothing in the evidence of P.W.1 to implicate him, therefore the order of discharge of A -2 is confirmed. The revision is partly allowed, and the order of discharge against A -1 is set aside, and the matter is remanded to the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Tuticorin, who will take the case on his file and dispose it of afresh in the light of the observations made in the judgment.