BAISHNAB CHARAN MOHANTY Vs. MADAN SAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against an -order of acquittal of the accused Respondent of a charge under Section 16(1)(80) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954: (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for having sold adulterated ghee which is prohibited by the Food (Health) Authority in the interest of public health.

(2.) ON November 29, 1962 the Food Inspector, Puri Municipality issued to the accused Respondent a notice under Section 11(1)(80) of the Act whereby the Food Inspector wanted to purchase three samples of Food articles including ghee for analyses by the Public Analyst. On the same date the Food Inspector purchased ghee for price as appears from the receipt ext. 2. The report of the Public Analyst is that he received the sample of ghee obtained from the accused Respondent for analysis (properly sealed and fastened) and that he found the seal intact and unbroken; he further certified that he had caused the said sample to be analysed and declared the result of the analysis that it was adulterated (ext. 3).

(3.) THE prosecution case is based on the evidence of three witnesses, namely Food Inspector p.w.3 who purchased the impugned sample of ghee from the accused Respondent; he said that he separately sent the specimen impression of the seal used to the food sample in a separate memorandum to the Public Analyst. P.w.1 is an attesting witness to the notice which was served on the accused Respondent in his presence; he further said that the Food Inspector purchased, among other food articles, ghee on payment of price; the Inspector sealed and packed the sample. P.w.2 is also another attesting witness to the service of the notice on the accused.