KURAPTI VENKATA REDDY AND ANOTHER Vs. THE STATE,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only point that is urged before me by Sri Padmanabha Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners in this revision case, is that the sample taken by the Food Inspector, P.W. 1 and sent to the Analyst is not in accordance with Rule 22 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 and hence the judgement passed by the lower appellate court confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court is unsustainable.

(2.) In support of his contention he relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in R.G. Pamnani v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1975 Supreme Court 189 : (1975 Cri LJ 254) and also the decision of the Madras High Court in Damodaran v. Food Inspector, 1975 Mad LJ (Crl.) 565 : (1976 Cri LJ 273).

(3.) In the case on hand, the Food Inspector, P.W. 1 visited the shop of the accused on 30.8.1973 at 10 A.M. and purchased 600 grams of Kova for the purpose of analysis by paying Rs. 8-40, from the 2nd accused who is in-charge of the shop of the first accused and it was divided into three parts and quantity of 200 grams was sent to the Analyst for analysis after observing the formalities required under the Statute and rules. The Public Analyst gave his report, Ex. P-7 according to which the sample sent to him contained coal tar dye which is prohibited under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The trial Court accepted the prosecution case and held that the kova sold by the accused was adulterated and consequently it convicted the accused under Sections 16(i), 7(i) read with 2(i)(j) of the Act sentencing each of them to six months' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each.