FOOD INSPECTOR ANANTHAPUR Vs. V PULLA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the State is preferred against the judgment of the learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Anantapur in C. C. No. 26 of 1978 acquitting ths respondent accused of the offence punishable under Sec. 16 (1) read with Sec. 2 (i) (a) (m) of the prevention of Food Adulteration Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The prosecution case is as follows : On 30-11-1977 at about 4 p. m. the Food Inspector P, W. 1 saw the accused carrying a milk can. P. W. 1 stopped the accused and enquired what kind of milk the can contained. The accused said that it was cow and buffalo milk. P. W. 1 suspected that the milk was adulterated. He called P. W. 2 as a mediator and in his presence he completed all the formalities and purchased a sample of 660 ml by paying Rs. 1-32 Ps. He divided the milk into three parts and put the same into three bottles, labelled and sealed them and a panchanama was prepared. Ex. P. 3 is the panchanama. It was signed by P. W. 2. P. W. 1 sent one of the bottles to the Analyst. After receipt of the public Analyst report a complaint was filed on 17-2-1978. On 18-2-1978 a notice Ex. P. 7 as required under Sec. 13 (2) of the Act was sent to the accused from the local authority. A charge was formed to which the accused pleaded not guilty. On behalf of the prosecution P. Ws. 1 and 2 were examined. P. W. 2 was however treated hostile. After completion of the examination of the prosecution witnesses the accused was examined under Sec. 313 Cr. P. C. The accused denied the offence.

(2.) The learned additional Judicial First Class. Magistrate accepted the evidence of P. W. 1 and also held that the sample was adulterated, But he acquitted the accused on the ground that there was no compliance of Rule 9-A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, herein after referred to as the Rules, which according to the learned Magistrate is mandatory. In that view of the matter he acquitted the accused.

(3.) In this appeal by the State the learned Additional Public Prosecutor contends that the notice under Sec. 13 (2) of the Act is sufficient. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor also contends that the Rule 9-A of the Rules only lays down the procedure as to how a notice under Sec. 13 (2) of the Act has to be sent and that in the instant case Ex. P. 7 is the intimation sent as required under Sec. 13 (2) of the Act and there is no necessity to send another intimation as required under Rule 9-A of the Rules. I see considerable force in the submission of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Sec. 13 (2) of the Act reads thus ;