FOOD INSPECTOR NIZAMABAD Vs. N CHANDRAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal preferred by the State represented by the District Food Inspector, Nizamabad against the judgment dated 16-8-1996 of the learned Sessions Judge, Nizamabad in Criminal Appeal No. 37 of 1995 acquitting the accused for the offence under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, reversing the conviction given by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kamareddy in C. C. No. 204 of 1986, dated 28-4-1995 for the offence under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is briefly as follows: The accused is running a kirana shop at Kamareddy. P.W. 1, the then Food Inspector, visited the shop of the accused on 31-12-1985 at about 2.45 p.m. and found the accused conducting the business in the shop. P.W. 1, after ascertaining that the accused is the proprietor of the shop, introduced himself as Food Inspector and expressed his intention to inspect the shop. Accordingly, he inspected the kirana shop of the accused in the presence of P.Ws. 2 and 3 - mediators - and found 5 Kgs. of Mirchi powder in closed packets kept in the shop for human consumption. The accused failed to produce the bill and source of supply of mirchi powder. P.W. 1 served Form 6 notice on the accused. He purchased three closed packets of mirchi powder of 500 gms each and after following all necessary formalities took the samples, sealed them, affixed labels and obtained the signatures of the accused, P.Ws. 2 and 3 and subscribed his signature also. Out of the three samples, he sent one sample to Public Analyst for analysis. The other two samples were deposited with the local health authority at Nizamabad. After receipt of the analyst report, he furnished a copy to the accused with the opinion of the Analyst that the mirchi powder was adulterated. Hence, the complaint against the accused for the offences under Sections 16(1)(a)(i) and 16(1-C) of the Act.

(3.) After taking cognizance of the offence, the learned Magistrate secured the presence of the accused and framed the charge against the accused for the offences under Sections 16(1)(a)(i) and 16(1-C) of the Act. The accused denied the charges and claimed for trial.