PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Vs. Y PULLA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In C.C. No. 115 of 1963 on the file of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kurnool the Food Inspector (Municipal Health Officer), Kurnool filed a complaint against the sole accused to the effect that the latter committed an offence under Section 16 (1) and Section 7 read with Section 2 (vi) (a) and (b) and Rule 44 (b) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and Rules, 1934. The accused denied the offence. The learned Magistrate, after full trial, acquitted the accused. The learned Public Prosecutor filed this appeal against the order of acquittal.

(2.) The complaint runs as follows: "On 24-11-1962, the accused was found selling mixture of cows and buffalos milk to the Bus stand hotel. A sample of cows and buffalos milk was taken from him. It was divided into three parts as per rules, sealed and marked as Sample No. 248 and delivered one of the sealed bottle bearing No. 248 to the accused and sent another bottle to the Public Analyst who certified that the sample contains 8 per cent of added water and is, therefore, adulterated. Hence the accused is charged."

(3.) The prosecution examined two witnesses. P. W. 2 is the Food Inspector, P. W. 1 is a servant in a hotel at the Kurnool Bus stand and he deposed to have been present when the accused brought a milk can to the hotel and when P. W. 2 seized a sample. Ex. P-3 is the panchanama prepared on the occasion. P. W. 1 says that he signed if. The signature is in Urdu in the name of Mohd. Sab. In Court, P. W. 1s deposition mentions him as Mohd. Sab in portions written by the Court clerk but the signature of P. W. 1 under the deposition in Urdu contains name "Mohd. Moula". Shri Somakonda Reddy, the learned Advocate for the respondent, points out this particular feature. The lower Court, in its judgment, did not refer to the difference in the names but observed and acted on the fact that the signature in the deposition was quite different from that in Ex. P-3.