FOOD INSPECTOR DIVISION Vs. KAPUGANTI SATYANARAYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment, dated 9-6-1999, in C.CNo. 54/1997 on the file of the Judicial I Class Magistrate, Srungavarapukota.

(2.) The Food Inspector, Vizianagaram, visited the 2nd respondent-Mill on 8-10-1996 and found ten tins of groundnut oil kept for sale for human consumption. On suspicion that it was adulterated, he sought to purchase it as a sample. 1st respondent-A-1 denied to sell it to the Food Inspector. Then the Food Inspector tried to seize the entire stock of 10 tins. A-l forcibly resisted the attempt of the Food Inspector and A-3, the son-in-law of A-l necked out the Food Inspector from the mill. The Food Inspector sent a detailed report to the Director, Institute of Preventive Medicine, Hyderabad, who accorded permission to lodge a complaint against A-1 to A-3-respondents 1 to 3 herein respectively. Accordingly the Food Inspector lodged a private complaint before the learned Judicial I Class Magistrate, Srungavarapukota, which was registered as C.C.No. 54/1997 for an offence under Section 16(1) (c) and (d) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. On behalf of the complainant, four witnesses were examined and seven documents were marked. On consideration of the evidence on record, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the Prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, by its judgment, dated 9-6-1999, it acquitted the accused persons, challenging the legality and correctness of which the Food Inspector filed the present appeal.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the learned Public Prosecutor contended that the lower Court did not consider the aspect of the A-1 and A-3 preventing and necking out the Food Inspector who was discharging his official duties, but considered irrelevant points such as non-compliance with mandatory provision under Sec.10(7) of the Act, lacuna in the sanction order and delay in submitting report to the Director, InstituteofPreventiveMedicine,Hyderabad, etc, and therefore the impugned judgment should be set aside. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the accused contended that the Food Inspector never visited the mill but foisted the case on false grounds, and that since the lower Court after considering all the necessary points in the case acquitted the accused, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment.