DISTRICT FOOD INSPECTOR Vs. SHRI MEGHRAJ SARMAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal appeal is from the judgment and order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sibsagar acquitting the Respondent of the charge under Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (for short, 'the Act'). Samples of mustard oil collected from the Respondent vendor Shri Meghraj Sarma of Shri Shyam Stores of Jorhat -2 was reported by the public analyst to be adulterated.

(2.) AT the trial the District Food Inspector, who was examined before the charge was framed, was allowed to be cross examined as P.W. 1; and an Office Peon and a nearby shopkeeper Were examined as P.Ws. 2 and 3 respectively. The public analyst was examined as a Court witness at the instance of the defense which examined no witness.

(3.) THE learned Public Prosecutor submits that the trial Court, misdirected itself in holding that prosecution failed to give definite history of the movement of the sample and it committed error of law in holding that the noted, figures and calculations made and recorded in the process of analysis constituted the primary evidence and their non -production entitled the accused to a benefit of doubt and acquittal, when the percentage of linseed oil present in the sample was not stated.