FOOD INSPECTOR DIV III WARANGAL Vs. BALDE RAMULOO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 1.5.2001 passed in C.C. No.268 of 1996 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jangaon, by which the learned Magistrate found the accused-Balde Ramuloo not guilty for the offence under Sections 16(l)(a)(ii), 7(i) and 2(ia)(b) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for brevity 'Act') and accordingly acquitted him.

(2.) P.W.I A. Rameshwaram was a Food Inspector of Warangal District, Division III. Accused was the proprietor of M/s Srinivasa Assam Tea Depot, Station Road, Jangaon in Warangal District. On 20-12-1995 at about 1.15 p.m. P.W.I along with his Assistant Food Controller, Zone VI, Warangal made a surprise visit to M/s. Srinivasa Assam Tea Depot and found the accused transacting the business. He purchased 375 gms of tea dust under Ex.P.l cash receipt for the purpose of analysis. He divided the tea dust into three equal parts and collected in three empty bottles, packed and sealed the bottles as per the procedure contained in the Act and The Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (for short Rules). He sent one sample bottle to the public analyst. On analysis the sample was found to be adulterated. Ex.P.l2 is the public analyst's report as per which the sample does not conform to the ash insoluble in Oil HCL and contains cashew husk and it is, therefore, categorized as adulterated one. After obtaining necessary sanction orders, P.W.I presented a complaint on 6-5-1996 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Jangaon and thereafter sent a notice (Ex.P.22) under Section 13(2) of the Act to the accused on 23.7.1997. Ex.P.23 is the postal receipt. Ex.P.24 is the acknowledgment. The learned Magistrate took the complaint on file as C.C. No.268 of 1996. On appearance of the accused/ respondent and on furnishing copies of the documents, the learned Magistrate examined the accused/ respondent under Section 251 Cr.P.C putting the substance of the accusation levelled against him. The accused/respondent pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. To substantiate the accusations levelled against the accused/ respondent, the prosecution examined P.Ws.l to 3 and marked Exs.P.l to P.26. P.W.I is the Food Inspector and P.Ws.2 and 3 are the panch witnesses and of whom latter one is no other than the attender attached to P.W.I. P.W.2 did not support the prosecution and the prosecution declared him hostile. The learned Magistrate, on appreciation of the evidence brought on record, found that P.W.I contravened Section 13(2) of the Act and Rules 19 and 22 of the Rules and thereby recorded acquittal of the accused/respondent. Assailing the judgment of acquittal, the State has filed this Criminal Appeal.

(3.) Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the Trial Court failed to note that Rules 9(B), 19 and 22 of the Rules are not mandatory and that infraction of them is not a ground to acquit the accused/ respondent. He further submits that the accused/respondent has to satisfy that the infraction of the above-referred Rules caused prejudice to him in putting forth his defence and then only he could claim benefit of infraction of above-referred rules. He placed reliance on the following decisions in Kandasami v. Food Inspector, Athoor, 1982 Crl.LJ 963, State of Kerala v. Alasserry Mohd, AIR 1978 SC 933 and T. V. Usman v. Food Inspector, Tellichery Municipality, AIR 1994 SC 1818.