PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Vs. KOLISETTY SUBBA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the State against the acquittal of the Accused in C. C. No.190/67 on the file of the Second Additional Munsif Magistrate, Guntur of a charge under section 16 (i) read with section 7 and Rule 44 (a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

(2.) The Food Inspector attached to Guntur Municipality laid a complaint against the accused Kolisetty Subba Rao who was a dealer in pulses at Guntur alleging that on 24-3-1967 thrpe cart loads containing in all 50 bags of Kesaridal were being transported to bis shop from the Railway Station which were stopped and a sample for analysis was purchased from the accused and this sample when sent to the Chemical Analyst was found to be 100 percent Kesaridal, sale of which is prohibited by a notification issued by the Government under Rule 44 (a). In support of this case, four witnesses were examined. Their evidence is that on 24-3-67 on information that 50 bags of dhal was being taken delivery of at the Railway Station and suspecting them to be adulterated P. W, 2 the Food Inspector along with bis maistry P. W, 3 were waiting at the Government General Hospital gate and finding three cartloads carrying in all 50 bags of dbal going, they stopped the carts that one of the cartmen went to get the accused who is the owner of the bags and after he came there, P. W. 2 purchased 750 grams of dhal for Rs. 0-82 paise and obtained a receipt Ex. P-2, that P. W, 2 then divided the dbal purchased into three portions put them in three, bottles, sealed them and gave one such bottle to the accused, that he had also given form No.6 Notice Ex.P-3 and the accused had acknowledged it in Ex.P-4, that thereafter his statement Ex.P-5 was also taken, that P.W. 2 then seized the 50 bags under a mediatornama Ex. P-1, that the Municipal Health Officer, as well as another Sanitary Inspector P. W. 4 were also then present. It is further stated that one sample bottle was sent to the Chemical Analyst and Ex.P-9 the report of the Analyst shews that it contained 100 per ceat Kesaridal the sale of which is prohibited under the Food Adulteration Rules 1955.

(3.) The accused in his statement stated that he did not sell any part of the dall to P, W. 2 and by the time he came to the place, the sample was being taken and he was not paid any money and as be refused to sign on the documents, he was threatened with production before Police and due to fear he signed on the documents. He examined one witness in his defence i. e. D.W.1 to corroborate his statement that no money was paid to him for the sample taken and bis signatures were forcibly taken in the documents and also to say that Kesaridal is also used as cattle fodder and such sale is not prohibited.