PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Vs. MAYAKRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed by the State of Madras for setting aside the order of acquittal of the respondent passed by Additional first Class Magistrate, Virudhunagar, in C. C. No. 382 of 1966. The respondent was tried for an offence under Section 7 read with Section 2(i)(a) and (l) punishable under Section 16(1) of the prevention of Food Adulteration Act for his having been in possession of adulterated groundnut oil for sale.

(2.) ACCORDING to the complainant, the Food Inspector of Virudhunagar Municipality under the powers conferred on him to take samples of food articles for analysis under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, went to the grocery shop of the respondent in which he was selling groundnut oil in Door No. 51. Sevathipuram, II Street in Muthurampatti within Virudhunagar Municipal limits. At about 8 -30 A. M. on 22nd November, 1965, he went to the respondent's shop. The respondent was in possession of groundnut oil in a tin which contained 4 or 5 litres of groundnut oil. The Food Inspector purchased 375 ml. from the respondent for Rs. 1. 50 on a receipt Exhibit P -l signed by the respondent in the presence of witnesses Kaiuppiah and Dharmar who attested Exhibit P -l. The Food Inspector divided the oil into 3 equal parts, poured them in 3 empty, clean and dry bottles and sealed and labelled them. He also prepared a notice and served a copy of it on the respondent and got his signature on it. He gave one of the sample bottles to the respondent and got his acknowledgment endorsed in Exhibit P -l. He sent a sample to the Public Analyst, Guindy. He received a report of the Public Analyst which disclosed that the groundnut oil contained free fatty acids in excess of the permitted limit 10 the extent of 73 per cent.

(3.) KARUPPIAH (P. W. 2) who was the attesting witness was examined by the prosecution to prove his attestation in Exhibit P. 1. But he turned hostile and in reply to question by the Assistant Public Prosecutor, in cross -examination he admitted that he signed Exhibit P -l after he read the same and that the contents of Exhibit P -l are true. There can be no difficulty in coming to the conclusion that this witness -was gained ever. In cross -examination after having been treated as hostile, he stated that the contents in Exhibit P -l are true. The defence of the respondent was that he was not doing oil business, that his shop is situate in his house itself and that in spite of his refusal to sell groundnut oil which he had purchased for lighting the lamp in his house, the Food Inspector purchased the same by compulsion. The Analyst's report Exhibit P -5 shows that the sample contained 6.2 per cent as against 3 per cent of Free Fatty Acids as permitted by clause A -17 -03 in Appendix B to the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955.