STATE OF M.P. Vs. KAMAL KUMAR NAIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is the State appeal against acquittal of the respondent-accused Kamal Kumar of the offence punishable under section 7 read with section 16(!)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

(2.) According to the complaint, the Food Inspector Shri K.N. Pandey, on 26-7-1972 on reaching the respondent-accused's shop, had expressed his intention to purchase the sample of groundnut oil for purpose of analysis. The respondent-accused gave the sample which was kept in three clean and dry bottles in equal quantity. The bottles mete closed with cork (stopper) and were duly sealed. The respondent accused refused to accept the price of the sample, sold and equally refused to sign the relevant papers relating the sale. One part of the sample was sent to the Public Analyst, who found the sample to be adulterated, inasmuch as, it was found to be mixed with linseed oil. It was alleged that the cob of the Public Analysts report was purported to be given to the respondent-accused who refused to take the same.

(3.) On the complaint being filed and on the charges being framed, the respondent-accused abjured the guilt. It was contended that from his shop, on sample whatsoever, was taken by the Food Inspector on the relevant date. He showed his ignorance about the taking of the sample by the Food Inspector from his shop. One defence witness was examined in support of his contention. The Trial Court, in the light of evidence on record, held that there are several irregularities committed by the Food Inspector in the taking of the sample, because (1) the whole sample of oil was not taken at first in one utensil and then equally distributed in three bottles but was directly taken in each bottle separately, from the tin ; and (2) one part of the sample and the specimen seal were not, each, sent separately to the Public Analyst. This apart, the sale of the sample for the purpose of analysis was held to be not duly proved, due to conflicting evidence in this regard. Furthermore, furnishing of the copy of the Public Analyst's report to the respondent-accused was also held to be not cogently proved and thus, causing prejudice to the respondent-accused. In view of these lapses and irregularities, the respondent-accused was acquitted of the offence in question. Hence, now, the State appeal.