STATE OF M P Vs. GANESH PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Criminal Appeal has been filed by the appellant-State against the judgment and order dated 30-1-1988 passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Janjgir in Criminal Case No. 321 of 1982, whereby the accused-respondents have been acquitted under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (for short "the Act" ).

(2.) THE prosecution case in brief was that on 18-2-1982 at village Sheorinarayan, during the annual Sheorinarayan Mela (Fair), the accused-respondent No. 1 was carrying on a sweet-meats shop wherein he was preparing and selling 'jalebi', 'bhajia' etc. . The Food Inspector, A. Pasha (P. W. 1) visited his shop and after introducing himself in the presence of witnesses purchased 600 gms of 'maida' after paying Rs. 1. 80 as price thereof. The sample of Maida purchased as above was divided into three equal parts which were kept in three separate dry and clean polythene bags. Each polythene bag was securely fastened, labelled and sealed as per rules. One sealed sample was sent to Public Analyst, Bhopal for analysis and remaining two samples were sent to the Local Health Authority, Bilaspur. The Public Analyst, Bhopal after analysing the contents of the sample submitted his report (Ex. P-13 ). As per report (Ex. P-13), the said 'maida' was found adulterated as it did not conform the standards laid down under Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (for short "the Rules" ). The accused-respondent No. 1 had purchased the said 'maida' from the shop of accused-respondent No. 2 and therefore after completion of the investigation, a complaint was presented against both of the accused-respondents.

(3.) THE learned Trial Magistrate after evaluating the evidence on record held that the prosecution failed to establish that the said 'maida' was purchased by accused-respondent No. 1 from the accused-respondent No. 2 and therefore the accused- respondent No. 2 was not responsible for the alleged adulteration. The learned Trial Magistrate further held that the prosecution failed to fulfil the requirement of Section 7 (3) of the Act which provides that the report of Public Analyst should be sent to the local Health Authority within 45 days from the date of receipt of sample. By the impugned judgment, the learned Trial Magistrate, therefore, acquitted both of the accused- respondents. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order, the appellant-State has filed the present appeal.