K ATCBAIAH Vs. WALKER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed by the complainant after obtaining specialleave under Section 378 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The appeal is filed against acquittal by the Food Inspector, the complainant. After this appeal was filed, the State filed Crl. A. No. 1042/88. On 14-8-1989 Bhaskara Rao, J., dismissed the appeal filed by the State. The material now placed in this appeal filed by the complainant was not placed before the learned Judge and the learned Judge came to the conclusion that as per Rule 8 of the Rules under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, the Food Inspector is not a qualified person as he did not work as a Sanitary Inspector for a minimum period of one year.

(2.) In this appeal filed by the complainant, Mr. T. Bali Reddyfrankly stated that be is pressing the appeal purely on technical grounds because the acquittal recorded wrongly by the Magistrate is jeopardising the service prospects ot the Food Inspector and he is prevented from taking samples. He has produced ample material before this Court to indicate that the complainant Food Inspector is a qualified Sanitary Inspector, that he worked as Sanitary Inspector for several years after qualifying himself in the training in May, 1965 and he was appointed as Food Inspector in the year 1982. He challenges the findings of the learned Magistrate that the Food Inspector is not qualified to be appointed as Food Inspector on the ground that he did not prove the fact that he was qualified to be appointed as Sanitary Inspector and that he had also gained experience as Sanitary Inspector for a minimum period of one year.

(3.) The point for consideration is whether the appellant-FoodInspector-Complainant is a qualified Food Inspector and whether he was duly appointed as Food Inspector or not?