STATE OF M.P. Vs. CHOUTHMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal appeal has been filed by the State -appellant against the judgment and order dated 20.7.1987 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Burhanpur, District East Nimar in criminal case No. 1255/84 whereby the accused -respondent has been acquitted of charge under section 16(1) (a) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (In short 'The Act').

(2.) THE prosecution case in brief was that the accused -respondent was carrying Kirana business at Village Nimar Tahsil Burhanpur, District Khandwa (East Nimar). On 29.9.1983 the complainant Food Inspector V.K. Bhatnagar (PW1) after giving notice in Form No.6 to respondent -accused, purchased 375 gram of tea from his shop who was keeping the same in his possession for sale. The complainant, then kept the purchased tea separately ~n three dry and clean packet in equal proportion. Each packet was labelled, securely fastened and sealed as per rules. After complying all the formalities. one packet was sent to the PublIc Analyst. Bhopal for analysis. Public analyst, after analysing the contents of the packet submitted report (Ex. P -7). According to the report (Ex. P -7) the tea was not found to the standard as laid down under Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. 1955 (in short "the Rules"). The purchased tea was, thus, found adulterated. On the basis of the complaint filed by the Food Inspector, charge u/s 16(1) (a) of the Act was framed against the accused -respondent.

(3.) HAVING gone through the entire evidence produced by the prosecution we are of the opinion that the contention of learned panel lawyer for the State has no substance. There are two varities of tea one "tea" and another "Kangra -tea" as enumerated in clause A -14 and A -14.01 of Appendix 'B' of the Rules. It is thus quite evident that the purchased item should be either "tea" or "Kangra -tea".