PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Vs. KALAVALA SATYANARAYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State has preferred this appeal against the acquittal of the accused who was charged under section 16(i) and section 7 read with section 2 (ix) (d) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for having sold at his shop at Piler 750 grams of 'Uddi Pappu' containing 1.76 per cent, of 'talc', on 9th February, 1971 at 1 P.M.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that P.W. 1 who is the Food Inspector, and another person named Venkatramana Reddy (P.W. 2) visited the shop of the accused on gth February, 1971 at 1 P.M. This shop is situated in Nehru bazaar, Piler. The accused had exposed 'Uddi Pappu' for sale. After the issue of Form 6 notice upon the accused, and after obtaining his acknowledgment under Exhibit P-1. P.W. 1 purchased 750 grams of 'Uddi Pappu' for Rs. 1.35 P. and obtained the cash receipt, Exhibit P-2 from the accused. He divided the 'Uddi Pappu' into three equal parts, and poured it into the empty clean dry bottles, and sealed them, giving a label No. 135. P.W. 2 another person was present throughout. P.W.1 gave the sample of the bottle to the accused. He drafted a Panchanama, Exhibit P-3. He sent one bottle with the memorandum containing specimen of the seal to the Public Analyst, who sent his report Exhibit P-4 with his opinion that the sample contained, 1.76 per cent, of 'talc' and therefore misbranded. The other bottle, M.O. 1 was sent to the Court, and P.W. 1 laid the complaint.

(3.) The accused admitted the sale to P.W. 1, but contended that the 'Uddi Pappu' was meant for his personal use. The trial Court disbelieved the evidence of the accused, and found that the 'Uddi Pappu' was misbranded. Nevertheless, the learned Magistrate applied section 95 of the Indian Penal Code, and came to the conclusion that the adulteration was "very negligible, and was purely an oflence, technical in nature", and, therefore, acquitted the accused.