STATE OF ORISSA Vs. S DANDASI PATRO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed by the State Government against the order of the S. D. J. M., Chhatrapur, Ganjam acquitting the accused -respondent, S. Dandasi Patro, who is a dealer in grocery articles of the charges u/s. 16(1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.

(2.) PROSECUTION case is that on. 25 -7 -1977 the Food Inspector of Ganjam visited the grocery shop of the accused -respondent and suspected that edible Til oil kept in the shop for sale was adulterated. He purchased 375 gms. of Til oil and paid the price of the same to the respondent. Then -he divided the oil into three equal parts and kept each of them in a sample bottle after observing all formalities and taking necessary precautions. He sent one of the sample bottles to the Public Analyst for his examination and report. The Public Analyst opined that the sample was adulterated. So prosecution report was filed against the accused -respondent.

(3.) PROSECUTION examined three witnesses. P. Ws. l and 2 are the Food Inspectors and P. W. 3 is a seizure witness. None was examined by the defence. The learned Magistrate after considering the evidence on record and the report (Ext. 8) of the Public Analyst came to hold: 'Thus to bring the accused within the purview of the offence, it is first of all to be proved by the public Analyst that the sample collected by the Food Inspector is adulterated and unfit for human consumption. In the instant case nothing has been written in the report of the Public Analyst. Ext. 8, the report of the Public Analyst, only revealed that the sample of food is adulterated. In view of the above facts, I hold that the accused cannot be convicted and he cannot be said to have committed any offence. Thus I hold that the prosecution has failed to prove this point against the accused and the accused is entitled to an acquittal.'