PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Vs. S THATHA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Stale has filed this appeal against an order passed by the Munsif Magistrate Visakhapatnam acquitting the respondent from the charges under Sections 7 and 16(1) read with Section 2(1)(a) and (1) and Rule 44(B) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954

(2.) The short facts are that the Municipal Health Officer and Sanitary Inspector, Visakhapatnam Municipality filed a complaint alleging that on 19-8 1963 at about 6-30 a.m. accused was carrying milk in a brass vessel for sale. P.W.2 the Food Inspector wanted to purchase the milk and requested some persons to assist as mediators but none agreed to act. In the meantime P W 1 who was also a Sanitary Inspector at the time came that side and in his presence P.W2 purchased the sample of milk from the respondent after paving him 76 paise and obtained a receipt under Ex P-2. Then according to the usual procedure, he divided the milk into three equal parts and put them in three bottles and then sealed them. One was given to the accused one was sent to the Public Analyst and one was retained by him. The Maistry of the Municipality who was along with the Food Inspector also signed on the statement Ex. P-S that was taken from the accused. The Public Analyst under his report Ex P-4 reported that the sample of milk tent to him contained 27 per cent of added water and therefore was adulterated. Thereafter P.W.2 filed a complaint, which has given rise to the case

(3.) Besides P.W.2, P.W.1 the Sanitary Inspector was also examined to prove the case of the prosecution P W 3 is another Food Inspector, Visakhapatnam Municipality, who filed the complaint and he has stated in the course of evidence that he has been authorised by the Municipality to institute prosecutions under the Food Adulteration Act. P.W 2 had handed over to him the relevant record on the basis of which he filed the complaint