PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Vs. C C NARAYANA ACCUSED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the learned Public Prosecutor against the Judgement of the learned Munsif-Magistrate, Tadpatri in C. G. No. 27 of 1966 acuquitting the sole accused, The Food Inspector of Tadpatri Municipality filed a complaint that he purchased 200 grams of coffee powder from the accused on 31-12-1964 at 4 P. M. and on analysis it was found to contain 10% wheat starch and therefore it was adulterated. The prosecution examined two witnesses. P. W. 1. is the complainant. P. W. 2 is the panchayatdar. They spoke to the fact that P. W. 1 purchased 200 grams of coffee powder and observing all formalities made a sample of it and sent a portion of the sample for analysis. The version of P. Ws. 1 and 2 was consistent except for the fact that, where as P. W. 1 deposed that the pur. chate was at 4 P. M., P. W. 2 deposed that it was at 10 or 10-30 A. M. Ex. P. 4 the report of the analyst is as foliows:- P. 11 "Tests done Values obtained Values permitted in Cl. A. 08 in Appendix B to the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. Aqueous extract. 31.6%. 25% to 32% Microscopic examination; Coffee and wheat strach present......... opinion that the sample contained about 10% of wheat starch and is therefore adulterated."

(2.) The learned Magistrate acquitted the accused on four grpunds which are as follows:

(3.) Ground No. 4 is not tenable as a ground to doubt the fact of sale because the sale by the accused to P. W. 1 at the time spoken to by P. W. 1 is admitted by the accused. Ground No.3 is not tenable because there is the statement of the expert in his report Ex. P. 4 that no change had taken place in the article since the da-e of purchase till the date of its analysis that would interfere with the analysis. Ground No. 2 is not tenable. The expert who gave the opinion knew how he arrived at the conclusion and indicated the method adopted by him though the learned Magistrate did not know the full details, Under S. 13, sub-section (5) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 any document purporting to be a report signed by a public analyst unless it has been superseded under sub-section (3) may be used as evidence of the facts Stated therein in any proceeding under the Act. The contents in Ex. P. 4 are evidence in this case. They stand unless rebutted in the manner mentioned in S. 13. They have not, in fact, been rebutted Apparently by microscopic examination he was able to get the idea of the percentage of wheat starch in the coffee powder content. In any case the exact quanttiy of wheat starch is not of great value to make out a particular case in view of Rule 44. GROUND No. 1. Rule 44 (i) reads as follows :