G SATYANARAYANA FOOD INSPECTOR Vs. VOOLLA MALI BABU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Proviso 2 of Rule 8 of the prevention of Food Adulteration Rules 11955 reads as follows:

(2.) On a reading of the proviso with reference to Exs, P-1, P-2 and P-3, it is clear that the appellant has got the required experiance to act as a Food Inspector. More-over, his appointment as a Food Inspector was on 26-2-82. The sample was taken in March, 1983. Even by that date he has acquired sufficient experience as required under the proviso. The finding of the Lower Court that he has not acquired the requisite qualification to take the samples as Food Inspector is not correct and that finding is set aside. PW 1 is a compatent Food Inspector as on the date of the seizure in March, 1983.

(3.) The Lower Court arrived at the conclusion that Rule 14 has not been complied with and there is no sufficient proof to show that A-3 is the owner of the shop. I do not find any reason to interfere with his acquittal.