PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Vs. KANUMARLAPUDI RAMALINGAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole respondent (accused) was prosecuted for selling edible oil which was found to be adulterated by the Public Analyst. The Additional Munsiff- Magistrate of Tenali who tried the case, acquitted the accused on the ground that there was no reliable evidence to show that the coconut oil which had been mixed with the groundnut oil which had been mixed with the groundnut oil was likely to affect injuriously the health or any other way prejudicially affect the purchaser. The appeal is directed against this order of acquittal.

(2.) The fact beyond controversy are that the accused was found storing some oils in tins for the purpose of sale in his oil retail shop. This shop is situated in Ravi Anjaiah Street, 8th Ward, Tenali. The Food Inspector of Tenali Municipality purchased a sample of oil from him in the presence of mediators after paying the necessary price. The sample so purchased was divided into three equal parts and sealed in bottles. Once bottle was handed over to the accused. The other was sent to the Court and the third one was sent to the public Analyst for analysis. The Public Analyst in his report opined that the sample consisted of a mixture of 82% of groundnut oil and 18% of coconut oil and was therefore, adulterated. On that basis a report was laid against the accused for contravention of the provisions of the Food Adulteration Act, namely Sections 16 (1) and 7 read with Section 2 (1) Ia) and 2 (1) (i) . The accused pleaded that he had sold that he had not committed any offence. The learned Additional Munsiff- Magistrate, Tenali, after examining one witness for the prosecution and one witness for the defence, acquitted the accused mainly on the ground that the adulteration was not injurious to the health of the purchaser nor was shown to be prejudicial to him in any other way.

(3.) The learned public Prosecutor contends that the view taken by the lower Court is erroneous inasmuch as adulteration as defined in the Act takes in its ambit the mixing of two edible oils. His argument is that the sample sent to the Public Analyst conformed neither to the standard prescribed for the groundnut oil nor for the coconut oil. In case of coconut oil, the provision of A. 17.0.1. are attracted while in the case of groundnut oil A. 17.0.3 are applicable. The Public Analyst who had taken these into consideration had opined that the sample was adulterated. The definition in the Act of "adulteration food" is as under: