MORABAKULA RAMANADAM Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal revision case is directed against the judgment of the learned IV-Additional Sessions Judge, Ongole, in Crl.A.No.17 of 1999 dated 9/1/2004 confirming the conviction and sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of one year and a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, simple imprisonment for a period of three months, for the offences punishable under Sections 16 (1) (a) (i) read with Section 7 (i) and 2 (ia)(m) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (for short 'the Act') read with Rule 47 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, imposed against the revision petitioner- accused by the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Addanki, Prakasam District, in C.C.No.189 of 1996 dated 22.01.1999.

(2.) IT is the case of the prosecution that on 17.10.1995 at about 1.00 P.M. the Food Inspector, Prakasam District (PW.1) inspected the toddy shop of the accused and found the accused transacting business with an open pot containing 12 litres of toddy, and on suspicion that the said toddy being adulterated, he purchased one litre of toddy for the purpose of sending it for public analysis. After purchase, he divided the said toddy into three equal parts and sent one sample to the Public Analyst, who gave his report opining that the sample does not conform to the standards of alcohol content and contains saccharine and is, therefore, adulterated. Accordingly, a complaint was filed after following the procedure contemplated under the Act. The complaint was taken cognizance by the concerned Magistrate.

(3.) IN the light of the aforesaid decision of this Court, this Court has no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the entire prosecution launched against the petitioner- accused under the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the Rules framed thereunder is vitiated.