PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ANDHRA PRADESH Vs. VISWANATHAM CHETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal appeal by the State is directed against the Judgment and order of the Judicial 1st Class Magistrate, Adoni, acquitting respondents 1 and 2, (hereinafter referred to as the first accused and the second accused respectively) on charges under Section 16(1)(i) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, (Central Act XXXVII of 1954).

(2.) The facts of the case relating to this appeal are as follows: The Food Inspector attached to the Adoni Municipality examined in the case as P.W. 1, proceeded to the shop of the first accused who was a dealer in food-stuffs and provisions like ghee etc., and on 29-5-1957 at about 10 a.m. purchased one seer of ghee from the second accused paying Rs. 1-4-0. He obtained a receipt from the second accused marked as Ex. P-l in the case. The ghee that was sold to him was taken out of a tin of ghee which was lying in the shop. Having thus purchased the ghee in question and obtained the receipt Ext. P-1, P.W. l poured the ghee into three bottles in the presence of the second accused, and marked the bottles as Sample No. 28 and sealed all the three bottles with his seal. At the same time, P. W. 1 served on A-2 a declaration Ex. P-2, to the effect that the ghee was purchased for purposes of analysis. He then delivered one of the sealed bottles to the second accused and the second one he sent to the Public Analyst for examination, and the third one which was kept with P. W. 1 himself, was later produced into the Magistrates Court and marked as M. O. 1. It is the case of the prosecution that the first accused is a licensee for the sale of ghee in his shop No, 14/277 as per the yearly demand list prepared for the year 1957-58 and marked as Ex. P. 4. Ex. P. 3 is the report of the analyst who had examined one of the three bottles that was sealed and marked as sample No. 28 by P. W. 1 as above stated which established that the ghee sample contained 40 per cent of fat not derived from milk or cream and consequently was adulterated. The Public Analyst also found the said bottle marked as sample No. 28, to be properly sealed and fastened and that the seal was in tact and unbroken when he received it. A complaint was accordingly filed by the Food Inspector in the Court below, whose decision thereon is the subject of the present appeal.

(3.) In support of the prosecution, P. W. 1 the Food Inspector and P. W. 2 the Sanitary Mastery of the Municipality who was with P.W. 1, at the time of the purchase of the ghee in question and the sealing of the bottles, were examined.