(1.) This appeal by the State is directed against the order of acquittal dated 16th May ,1977 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nanded, in Criminal Case No. 369 of 1976.
(2.) The proceedings arise out of the prosecution under the provisions of the preventions of Food Adulteration Act. The article of food in this case is Tur Tukdi. The report of the Public Analyst (Exh. 36) indicated that it contained 29.8 per cent of damaged grans due to moisture and hence did not conforms to the standards laid down under the Rules under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. In a prosecution launched against the accused person, the learned Magistrate, after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, came to the conclusion on the material point to the effect that the article Tur Tukdi purchased by the Food Inspector was not meant for human consumption at all and secondly that the said article was actually meant for cattle feed. It was further found by the learned Magistrate that the sample was taken from a processing factory and not from any shop or any premises where goods or articles were being sold. In the result, an order of acquittal was rendered in favour of the accused persons.
(3.) In this appeal against the said acquittal, I have heard Mr. S.B. Patil ,the learned Public Prosecutor for the State. The accused are represented by Mr. R.M. Agarwal, the learned Counsel. After hearing the respective Advocate, it is not possible to take a different view of the matter and of the evidence on record than the one taken by the learned Magistrate. Here is a case where there are fatal infirmities in the prosecution case. Even taking the basic events as true, viz. the visit of the Food Inspector to the factory in question, the sale of Tur Tukdi by one of the accused to the said Food Inspector, the analysis thereof by the Public Analyst and the result of the said analysis as correct---All these do not bring home the guilt to the accused persons.