FOOD INSPECTOR Vs. GANGI REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred by the State against the judgment rendered by the Second Additional Munsif-Magistrate, Tanuku, acquitting the respondent-accused of the charge framed against him under Sections 16 (1) and (7) read with Section 2 (ia) (a) and (m) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, hereinafter called, the Act.

(2.) The facts giving rise to the appeal lie in a narrow compass and do not admit of any controversy: On 23-6-1977 at 9.30 A.M., P.W1, the Food Inspector of Penugonda Gram Panchayat, purchased a sample of milk from the accused after complying with the procedure prescribed by the Act. On analysis of the sample by the Public Analyst, it was found to be adulterated, as borne out by Ex. P-5. Neither the factum of sale of the sample by the accused to P.W-1 nor the accuracy of the report of the Public Analyst was doubted by the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate, however, acquitted the accused on the ground that there was no evidence that the adulterated sample was injurious to health and that sale of adulterated articles of food without being injurious to health was outside the purview of the Act.

(3.) Sri Narsimhachari, learned counsel for the accused fairly concedes that the view taken by the learned Magistrate is erroneous. He, however, submits that it is for the prosecution to establish that the adulteration of the sample was not solely due to natural causes and beyond the control of human agency. Reliance is placed upon section 2 (ia) (m) of the Act which runs thus: