STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Vs. SUBBARATNAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Trial Court found the respondent to have committed an offence punishable under Section 16 (1) (a) (i) and Section 7 (1) read with Section 2 (i) (a) and (m) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six month and to pay a fine of Rupees one thousand and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of two months. On appeal, he was acquitted on the sole ground that the mandatory requirement of Rule 18 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules has not been complied. Thus, the above appeal came to be filed.

(2.) P W 1, the Food Inspector of the Gram Panchayat, Giddalur, inspected the shop of the respondent at 4 p. m. on September 29, 1977 along with P W 3. He found the accused transacting the sale of articles of food. He also found a tin containing 5 KGs of groundnut oil kept for sale. On inspection he suspected the groundnut oil to be adulterated. He purchased 375 grams of groundnut oil from the accused in the presence of P Ws 2 and 3 and complied with all the essential steps required under Sec. 11 of the Act and the Rules. It is also not disputed by the defence. He sent one bottle for analysis and also sent separate Form VII (Ex. P-4) to the Government Analyst with a specimen seal affixed on that form. The oil contained free fatty acid and 3. 42% caster oil. It is thus adulterated. On receipt of the report from the Analyst Ex. P-5, P W 1 served a copy of it on the accused and laid the complaint before the Court. The Food Inspector, apart from examining himself as P W1, he also examined P Ws 2 and 3, the panch witnesses and marked the documents Exs. P-1 to P-6. The res- pondent-accused also examined D Ws 1 and 2 to substantiate his plea that P Ws 1 and 2 never visited his shop or took any sample from his shop. As stated earlier, the Magistrate believed the prosecution case and convicted and sentenced the accused to above. But the lower appellate Court acquitted the accused holding that compliance of Rule 18 is mandatory and P W 1 did not comply with the requirement and therefore the prosecution is vitiated. I have gone through the evidence of P Ws 1 to 3. It is consistent and trustworthy. The controversy centres round the compliance of the requirements envisaged under Rule 18.

(3.) The learned Public Prosecutor contended that the evidence of P W 1 establishes that he has adhered to the requirement contemplated under Rule 18 of the Prevention of Food Adultera- tion Rules. But the learned Additional Sessions Judge committed grievous error of law in holding otherwise. He further contended that the report of the Public Analyst Ex. P-5 discloses that the specimen seal sent by P W 1 was also found to be intact and that it was not tampered with. It corroborates the evidence of P W 1 This circumstance was not considered by the lower appellate Court, thereby miscarriage of justice has been "ensued to the prosecution.