(1.) The matter arises under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The respondent was tried for the offence punishable under Sec. 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.
(2.) The case of the Prosecution is that the Food Inspector, P.W. 1, went to the shop of the accused on 8-8-74, and he purchased 375 gms. of groundnut oil for purposes of analysis, in the presence of two panch witnesses, after serving Form VI notice. He fulfilled the other formalities and prepared the panchanama. He sent one of the bottles lo the Public Analyst who gave a report Ex. P11, stating that the sample of groundnut oil is adulterated. Thereafter the Food Inspector, P.W. 1, filed the complaint.
(3.) Several contentions were advanced before the trial Court on behalf of the accused. Most of the pedants were decided in favour of the Prosecution. One of the arguments before the trial Court was that there was no compliance of Rule 9(j) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, which says that the Food Inspector should send, by registered post, copy of the report received in Form III from the Public Analyst with a person from whom the sample was taken within ten days of the receipt of the said report. In the instant case the report of the Public Analyst is dated 22-8-74, but it was given to the accused only on 17-12-1974. So, the trial Court accepted that there was such a contravention. But, then the question was that the prosecution is vitiated on account of the contravention of the said Rule. The trial Court relying upon the Judgment of this Court in Public Prosecutor Vs. Sreeramulu (1) 1975 (2) A.P.L.J. P. 145 acquitted the accused. In that case. Madhusudan Rao, J., while dismissing the appeal against acquittal, observed that the Provisions of Rule 9(j) are mandatory. But, in a latter Judgment reported in I. Ramchamiram Vs. State (2) 1976 (I) A.P.L.J.P. 13 S.N. the learned Judge had an occasion to consider the Provisions of Rule 9(j) against. In that, the learned Judge reconsidered the Judgment rendered in Public Prosecutor Vs. Sreeramulu supra and held thus:-