STATE OF M.P. Vs. RAMPRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On checking of the respondent-accused's shop by the food inspector, he was found to be dealing in the food-grains without any license, for which he was convicted and sentenced u/s 16(1)(a)(ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). However, in the matter of adulteration of linseed Oil, whose sample had been taken by the food inspector, it was found to be adulterated as per the Public Analyst's report, he was acquitted on the grounds that the sample was not taken in a separate container as required by Sec. 11 of the Act, and was directly taken in three separate bottles and also on the ground that the copy of the Public Analyst's report was not supplied to the respondent accused as was mandatorily enjoined by Sec. 13(2) of the Act. Against this acquittal, the appeal has been filed.

(2.) I have scrutinised the evidence on record. Sec. 11 of the Act prescribes the procedure to be followed by the food inspector in the matter of taking the sample of food. From the food inspector's own evidence, coupled with his para 5 of the inspection report Ex. P-3, it is clear that the sample of the Linseed Oil was at first taken in the respondents own container and then the sample was poured in equal quantity in 3 clean and dry bottles. Para 4 of the food inspector's version clearly proves this fact. Therefore, the trial Court' was wrong in holding that the sample was not taken according to the prescribed procedure. It was actually so taken.

(3.) As far the other ground that copy of the Public Analyst's report was not supplied to the accused, the Panel Lawyer for the State has no material to assail. Record does not contain any papers e.g. postal receiptor postal acknowledgement etc. indicating that the copy of the report had actually been sent to the respondent-accused, either by the food inspector or by the Local (health) Authority. Therefore, there was clear breach of Sec. 13(2) of the Act causing prejudice to the respondent-accused. Public Analyst's report was, therefore, of no value. Acquittal of the respondent-accused was, therefore, proper in these circumstances.