PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Vs. H.A. NAYEEM AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal appeal by the State is directed against the judgment of the Court of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kurnool, acquitting accused-respondents, of the charges for the offences punishable under Sections 16(1 )(a) and 7 read with Sec. 2(i)(a) and (1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.

(2.) The case for the prosecution is that P.W.l, Food Inspector of Kurnool had visited the shop of A-l at Kurnool at about 10 a.m. only 25, 1973 and enquired whether honey was available in his shop for sale. A-l had replied that he was not having honey. But when P. W. 1 found some article like honey and asked A-l about it, A-1 informed P. W. 1 that it was honeyrex. The P. W. 1 purchased three bottles of honeyrex and paid a sum of Rs. 10 50. P. W. 1 called P. W, 2, a motor mechanic near the bus stand and in his presence recorded a statement. Ex. P-l from A-l, A-2 and A-3 are said to be the partners of the firm, G. Bell & Co., who are the manufacturers of honeyrex. After recording the statement of A-l, P. W. 1 served upon A-l, a notice in form VI (Ex. P-2) expressing his intention to send the sample to the public analyst for analysis. He handed over one bottle to A-l after obtaining his acknowledgement on the reverse of the notice, Ex. P-2 and prepared panchanama, Ex. P-4, and got the same attested by P. W. 2. He prepared a memorandum, Ex. P-5 and sent another bottle to the public analyst. A report Ex. P-6 was received from the public analyst. The public analyst opined that the sample is adulterated as it contained high hydroxy mythyl furfural and Fiche's test and Aniline chloride test are positive. P.W. 1 thereafter filed a complaint against the accused in the trial court.

(3.) The prosecution examined the Food Inspector as P. W. 1 and the mediator as P. W. 2. Ex. P-l to Ex. P-6 M. O. 1 were exhibited in support of the prosecution case The plea of A-l is that he had informed P.W. 1 that he was not having honey but he was having only honeyrex for sale and that he did not commit any offence. A-2 and A-3, who were represented through an advocate by special vakalat have also pleaded not guilty. The Court below, on a consideration of the entire evidence on record held that the sample (honeyrex) was an admixture of food products, that it was not an adulterated one, that the same was sold as honeyrex but not as honey, that no prejudice had been caused by the sale of it as it was sold as a balanced food product, that the application of the tests prescribed for honey could not be applied for honeyrex by the Public Analyst, that no offence has been committed by A-l and that A-2 and A-3 were not established to be the partners of the manufacturing firm of the honeyrex. Therefore, the court below acquitted all the accused. Hence this appeal.