CUTTACK MUNICIPALITY Vs. PRAKASH KUMAR BARIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 10 -9 -1979 passed by the learned Magistrate, First Class, Cuttack, in 2 ? C. C. Case No. 171 of 1978/Trial No. 117 of 1979 acquitting the accused -respondent of the charge under S. 16 (1) (a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short, 'the Act') read with Section 7 thereof.

(2.) A brief narration of the facts leading to the present appeal is that on 6 -4 -1978 at about 11 a.m., the Food Inspector of Cuttack Municipality (PW 1) inspected the shop of the respondent art Buxibazar, Cuttack town, in the name and style of "New Calcutta Sweets". At the time of inspection, the respondent being the proprietor of the shop was present. During his inspection PW 1 suspected adulteration of the stock of "sweet cow curd" and "Kamala Bhog" which were kept exposed for sale for human consumption. He served a notice on the respondent disclosing his intention to purchase the said articles for chemical analysis by the Public Analyst. He accordingly purchased 600 grams of cow curd and 1500 grams of "Kamala Bhog" on payment of the price of Rs. 4.20 P. and Rs. 18/ - respectively. The sample collected was divided into three equal parts and kept in clean, dry, empty and neutral glass bottles. Each bottle was packed, sealed and labelled properly. The paper slips signed by the Local Health Authority were affixed on each bottle with thread and gum. The signature of the respondent was taken on each bottle. PW 1 sent one bottle of each article to the Public Analyst, Government of Orissa, Bhubaneswar for chemical analysis. In accordance with the rules, the other two sample bottles of each article were deposited with the Chief District Medical Officer, Cuttack. The Public Analyst reported that the sample of "Kamala Bhog" was adulterated but the sweet curd conformed to the standard. Thereafter on obtaining necessary sanction from the appropriate authority, PW 1 submitted the prosecution report against the respondent under the aforesaid provision of law.

(3.) THE prosecution examined 3 witnesses in support of its case.