FOOD INSPECTOR Vs. ANTHONI AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed against the judgment in C.C. No. 138/198 on the file of the VI 1th Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad acquitting the accused under section 16(1a)(1) of the Prevention if Food Adulteration Act. The case against the accused is that on 29.7.1989, then the Food Inspector P.W. 1, inspected the bakery of A. 2 in Tarnaka in Secunderabad he found that A. 1, who was the salesman was present in the bakery and was managing the business. The Food Inspector found 200 grams of bread in open paper pack having fungus infestation. The accused contended that he kept the said piece of bread not for sale for human consumption but for being thrown out. The learned Magistrate accepted the contention that the bread is not meant for sale for human consumption. He also accepted the contention that the Food Inspector has no jurisdiction to inspect the shop of the accused. The Food Inspector P.W. 1, is working as Food Inspector for Rangareddy District. The bakery is located in Tarnaka in Hyderabad which is in Hyderabad district. Rule 11 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules provides that the Food Inspector may exercise the jurisdiction within the local limits of his jurisdiction. Therefore, the Food Inspector, P.W. 1, has no jurisdiction to inspect the bakery of the accused and so on that ground the prosecution must fail. It is unnecessary to consider the other point whether the position of the bread was kept for sale or for being thrown out. In view of the above finding, the appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.