PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Vs. A MAHALAKSHMIIPOTHARAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State has preferred this appeal against the acquittal of the two accused (respondents) by the Additional District Munsif-Magistrate, Machillipatnam in C.C.No. 130 of 1964 for an offence under sections 6 (1), 7 read with section 2 (1) (a) and (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and rule 44 (e) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. The learned Magistrate acquitted the accused on the main ground that the Food Inspector and the Public Analyst have not followd the procedure laid down in rules 7 and 18 of the said Rules. The learned Public Prosecutor has argued that it is not necessary for the Food Inspector to say in the Court that the statutory requirements under rules 7 and 18 have been complied with and that it has to bo presumed that the procedure has been duly complied wiih in the course of his official duties. Mr. Ramachander Rao, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents contended that rules 7 and 18 of the Rules are mandatory and in this case the Food Inspector when cross-examined, had to admit that he had not followed the procedure prescribed under rule 18, and that therefoie, there is violation of the statutory provisions, entitling his clients to an acquittal.

(2.) The short facts of this appeal are these. A-2 is the founder and properietor of Vidyavanam Trust Depot at Machilipatnam, and A-1 is the salesman in the Depot. Along with A-2, there are other trustees also who are connected with the trust. On 25th September, 1964, at about 6 45 A.M. the Food Inspector went to the Depot and asked A-1, who was in charge of the Depet to sell him 300 grams of gingelly oil after issuing a notice in the prescribed form. Ho paid 87 paise towards the cost of the oil, and purchased the oil from A-1. The Food Inspector divided the sample into three equal parts, corked and sealed the three parts of the sample in three separate bottles and gave one to A-1, retained another with him and sent the third one to the Public Analyst. The Public Analyst gave a report Exhibit P-6, dated 12th June, 1964, which reads as follows -

(3.) It is on the basis of this report that the learned Public Prosecutcr says that the offence has been made out against A-1, although A-2 may not be liable for the reason that he is only a trustee and as there is nothing to shew that he was actually in charge of the management of the Depot. The question in this case is whether there is observance of rules 7 and 18 of the Rules. Rule 7 prescribes the duties of a Public Analyst which reads as follows:-