STATE Vs. V SATYANARAYAN MURTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) GROUND -nut oil in an Agmarked sealed container was found on analysis to be adultered and the respondent who stored the container in his retail shop to sell for human consumption as prosecuted for having committed an offence under Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1951 (hereinafter called 'the Act') Two others were also prosecuted on the allegation that they were the manufacturer and wholesaler of the said ground -nut oil. On trial of the accused persons, all of them were acquitted. The State selected the respondent only against whom this appeal has been preferred. Being of the prima facie view that all the accused persons should be heard simultaneously to arrive at the just decision in this appeal, notice was issued by this Court for revising the order of acquittal against them. Notice was also issued to P. W. 1, the Food Inspector to explain in this Court some of the infirmities found by the trial Court for acquitting the accused persons.

(2.) PROSECUTION case, in brief, is that on 2. 9. 1978, P. W. 1 collected the sample from a sealed Agmarked container of ground -nut oil as per the statutory provisions. He handed over the sample to the public analyst on 5. 9. 1978 as 3rd and 4th September, 1978 were holidays. The report of the Public analyst dated 6. 10. 1978 discloses that the sample was adulterated. The three accused were called upon to face their trial for having manufactured adulterated ground -nut oil, distributed as wholesaler and stored the same for retail sale.

(3.) THE Food Inspector did not seize either the sealed tin or the label indicating the product to be of the manufacturer on the finding that the manufacturer could not get any opportunity to know whether the oil was of his product.