PYDI PRASADA RAO Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are the accused in CC No.59 of 2008 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Srikakulam. THEy allegedly committed the offences under the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 ('the Act' for short) and the Rules, 1955 therein. THE second petitioner is the Proprietor of a Hotel styled as 'Teja Tiffins Parlour and Family Restaurant' at Srikakulam. THE first petitioner is the vendor and agent of the second petitioner.

(2.) ON 27.4.2005, when the Food Inspector along with his staff visited the premises of the Restaurant of the second petitioner, the first petitioner was found to be transacting business. The Food Inspector found green gram in the hotel premises. Suspecting the same to be adulterated, the Food Inspector purchased 1500 grams of green gram from the first accused by paying Rs.42/- to the first petitioner.

(3.) THE inspection was conducted by the Food Inspector on 27.42005. THE sample would appear to have been sent for analysis on 30.4.2005. THE report of the Analyst was signed on 30.5.2005. THE Analyst referred to five items in the report. Column No.4 of the report would show that the variation was within reasonable limit. Nevertheless, the Analyst opined that the sample was adulterated foodstuff on the ground that the sample contained synthetic colour tartrazine. I am afraid that where the Analyst considered that the foodstuff is adulterated on account of the presence of tartrazine, it cannot be said that the foodstuff was not adulterated and that the report should not be accepted. Prima facie the report of the Public Analyst is liable to be taken into consideration. I, therefore, reject the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the report of the Public Analyst did not give reasons for concluding that the sample was adulterated and that the report of the Analyst, therefore, cannot tag liability to the petitioners.