STATE OF ASSAM Vs. SATYANARAYAN AGARWALLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These Government Criminal Appeals are from the judgment of acquittal of the respondent under Sec. 16(1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, shortly 'the Act',

(2.) The prosecution case is that on 4.2.72 the District Food Inspector of Sibsagar, Shri P.C. Saikia, visited the Bajreng Oil and Flour Mill of Barpathar in presence of the respondent, Satyanaryan Agarwalla, purchased from him two samples of mustard oil, one from a tin and the other from a tank storing mustard oil within the mill premises, for the purpose of analysis as an article of food by observing all the necessary formalities prescribed under the Act and the Rules framed thereunder and sent one part of each of the samples to the Public Analyst who submitted two reports declare it both the samples to be adulterated. Thereafter, obtaining necessary sanction from the Civil Surgeon of Jorhat he filed two separate offence reports against the respondent for prosecution under Sec. 16(l)(a)(i) of the Act. Two cases were accordingly started simultaneously against the respondent, being C.R. Case No. 1149/72 (first case) and C.R. Case No. 1150/72 (second case). Charges were separately framed against the respondent under the above section to which he pleaded not guilty. In the first case 3 P.Ws. only and in the second 3 P.Ws. and D.W. were examined. Both the cases were disposed of by a common judgment of acquittal by the learned trial Court. Govt. Criminal Appeal No. 1/76 is from the judgment of acquittal in C.R. Case No. 1149/72 and Govt. Criminal Appeal No. 2/76 is from the judgment in C.R. Case No. 1180/72. Both the appeals are disposed of by this common judgment.

(3.) Mr. C.R. De, the learned Public Prosecutor, Assam, submits that the trial Court erred in law and facts in holding that the samples were not adulterated as those were taken during the manufacturing process; and that the samples were not taken in clean dry bottles, despite the reports of the Public Analyst that the samples were adulterated and the evidence of P.W. 1 that the samples were taken in bottles earlier washed with soap and water and dried, Mr. J.P. Bhattacharjee, the learned counsel for the respondent, refuting, contends that the evidence on record clearly establishes that the samples were taken in the process of manufacture and that there was no evidence to show that the samples were taken in clean dry bottles as envisaged under Rule 14 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, shortly, 'the Rules'.