THE STATE Vs. SURESH SHRIRAM GUDE AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State has come in appeal against acquittal of the respondents under sections 7(1), 7(2), 7(5), 16 and 17 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Respondents Nos. 2 to 5 are the partners of the firm accused No. 6. On 5-5-1973, Inspector Joshi collected Kandi Goli, something comparable to Lolly Popy. 200 grns. out of the 600 gms. so collected, came to be sent to the Public Analyst. By his report Exh. 10, the Public Analyst expressed an opinion that the sample contained non-permed coal tar dye viz. Blue VRS and was adulterated under section 2(i)(j) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.

(2.) In acquitting the accused the learned Magistrate has found five factors in favour of the respondents. According to him, the bag was not correctly fastened, therefore R.I. 16 was not observed; the sample and the form were not separately sent as required by R.I. 17; quantity purchased was insufficient for analysis, hence there was a breach of R.I. 22. He also came to the conclusion that the report is defective inasmuch as two the previous days before the collecting of the sample blue VRS was a permitted coal tar dye. He further came to the conclusion that the sample was not kept for sale.

(3.) It appears that we need not disturb the finding of the acquittal for the reasons that according to R.I. then prevailing Kandi Goli would come under Item No. 14 "prepared food" so that the approximate quantity to be supplied to the Public Analyst would be 500 gms. whereas the sample was sent by the Food Inspector was 200 gms. only. Rajaldas Pamnan, 1975 (I) FAC 1 was relied upon and therefore the finding that R.I. 22 was not observed, could not have been disturbed so long as the Supreme Court Judgment in Rajaldas Pamnan's case was not challenged.