FOOD INSPECTOR, ZONE Vs. POOSALLA JAGANNADHA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed by the State against the acquittal of the respondent, who was tried under the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration on Act, P.W.I., the Food Inspector took the sample of chilly powder from the shop the respondent on 9.1.1984 and sent the same for the opinion of the Public Analyst after following the procedure. The Public Analyst, after analysing the sample, found that the same is adulterated. Therefore, the Food Inspector filed complaint.

(2.) The Food Inspector examined himself on P.W.I. and not Exs. P.I. to P. 29 marked. On behalf of the defence, none was examined and no document was marked. When the accused was examined under sec. 313 Cr. P.C. he denied the evidence of the prosecution. The court below, after considering the entire material evidence on record, acquitted the accused. Against this acquittal, this appeal is filed by the State.

(3.) In this case, P.l. deposited in support of the facts alleged in the complaint. But he did not examine any independent witness. A duty is case on the Food Inspector to examine independent witnesses as per sec. 10 (7) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. No independent witnesses has been examined in this case. Further it is not proved that P.W.I. sent the analyst report along with the intimation to send the second sample to the Analyst if the respondent so desired. It has been repeatedly held by this court that the procedure laid down under section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act is mandatory. The same is not proved in this case. The court below thoroughly considered the entire material evidence on record and acquitted the respondent by giving cogent and convicting reason. I seen to ground to interfere in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. Appeal dismissed.