GAZETTED FOOD INSPECTOR Vs. P MOHAN GOUD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal is directed against the Order of acquittal passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Wanaparthy, by his judgment dated 2-6-2000 in C.C. No. 203 of 1995.

(2.) The Food Inspector, Division-I, Mahabubnagar District, laid the complaint against the respondent herein as another under Sections 2(ia)(m) and 7(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for brevity 'the PFA Act'). It is alleged inter alia in the complaint that the complainant inspected the toddy depot of TCS Group Wanaparthy on 16-3-1995. The respondent/ A.2 is a President of the said depot. A. 1 was found selling toddy in the said premises. At 10.40 a.m. on the said day the complainant along with P.W. 4 Assistant Food Controller, Zone-VI, Hyderabad, and his Attender visited the premises in question and found A.I. conducting business. Upon introducing himself and suspecting the adulteration of toddy, he immediately called upon P.Ws. 2 and 3 from the local area to act as panchas and in their presence purchased two bottles of toddy of 600 ml. from A. 1 after having paid the price at Rs. 6/- per bottle under Ex. P1 cash receipt. He served Ex. P..2 notice in Form VI on A. 1 while expressing his intention to lift the sample. He then mixed up the purchased toddy thoroughly and divided into three equal parts at the rate of 400 ml. each and poured the contents in three clean and dry empty bottles separately. He then corked and sealed them with sealing wax and official seal, and affixed label bearing No. 64/AFC/Z-VI/7464/1995 in Ex. P.3 on each sample bottle. He then wrapped them in brown paper separately. A paper slip bearing the same code and serial number issued and signed by the Local (Health) Authority was affixed to the bottles. He obtained the signatures of A. 1 on the paper slips and also P.Ws. 1 to 3. After having thus completed the procedure in lifting the samples, he got a panchanama in Ex. P.4 drafted in English and read and explained the contents thereof to A. 1 and obtained his signatures on the panchanama.

(3.) One sample bottle thus lifted by him was sent on 18-2-1995 along with Form VII to the Public Analyst, State Food Laboratory, Nacharam, Hyderabad, under intimation to the Local (Health) Authority. Simultaneously, he sent a separate sealed cover containing memorandum in Form VII with specimen impression of seal used to seal the said samples. They were sent through his office Attender under Exs. P. 6, P.7(a) and P.8. The remaining two parts of the samples with seals intact along with memorandum in Form VII in duplicate were sent in sealed packet to the Director and Local (Health) Authority, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, through his office attender on the same day under Ex. P.7 acknowledgment. The Public Analyst after analyzing the sample gave his report in Form III dated 13-4-1995 in Ex. P. 10 and sent it to the Food Inspector under Ex.P. 11 covering letter. He opined inter alia in his report that the sample did not conform to alcohol content and was, therefore, adulterated. After obtaining the written consent as required, the complainant filed the complaint before the Court.