FOOD INSPECTOR KAKINADA Vs. GUNTURU VENKATESWARA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed by the State against the judgment dated 22. 03. 2002 passed by the I Additional Munsif Magistrate, Gurazala in C. C. No. 139 of 2000 whereby and whereunder the learned Magistrate acquitted the respondents 2 and 3 for the offences under Sections 16 (1) (a) (ii), 7 (i) and 2 (ia) (f) of the prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

(2.) THE brief facts giving rise for filing of the appeal are that pw-1 (V. Nageswara Rao), the Food Inspector inspected the firm of the 3rd respondent-M/s. Krishna Water Works, Piduguralla and drew samples in the presence of the second respondent who is the managing partner of the Firm and that of PW-2 (V. V. Subba Reddy) an independent witness who was taken as mediator, purchased 12 sachets of mineral water kept for sale from the second respondent, thereafter, he divided 12 sachets into three equal parts and put them in three clean dry empty plastic containers. Subsequent to conducting the sealing and sampling in accordance with the Act and Rules, sent one sealed sample along with memorandum in Form No. VII to the public analyst. The report of the public analyst ultimately revealed that the sample contained moulds and colourless suspended particles, therefore, the drinking water therein is adulterated. After obtaining written consent from the Director and State Food (Health)Authority, A. P. , Hyderabad, he filed complaint against the respondents and A-1. As A-1 was absconding, the case against him was separated and trial was proceeded against the respondents 2 and 3.

(3.) THE prosecution in order to prove it's case, before the learned trial Court, examined the Food Inspector as PW-1, the independent witness who was taken as mediator as PW-2 and marked Exs. P-1 to P-26. The respondents did not propose to examine any witnesses nor did they mark any documents on their behalf. The learned trial Court on a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence found that PW-2, the independent witness did not support the case of the prosecution, PW-1, the Food Inspector committed several material irregularities and violations in conducting the sampling and sealing process and also in his inspection and ultimately the learned trial Court acquitted the respondents 2 and 3 herein. Feeling aggrieved, the State preferred this appeal.