STATE OF ASSAM Vs. SUNDARLAL AGARWALLA AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE two Respondents herein were booked for trial under Section 16 read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, hereinafter called the Act. Both of them have, however, been acquitted on the ground that the sample of atta which had been sold to the District Food Inspector on 15.9.72 was not adulterated. Feeling aggrieved at the order of acquittal, this appeal has been preferred by the State.

(2.) AS the acquittal if founded on the finding that the Atta was not adulterated, let the report of the Public Analyst be noted. The Analyst found as below:

(3.) IN support of his submission, the learned Public Prosecutor has placed some reliance on State of Tamil Nadu v. R. Krishnamurthy : AIR 1980 SC 538 in which sale of gingelly oil mixed with ground -nut oil was held to be punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act. A perusal of the decision. however, shows that it had dealt mainly with the question as to whether a transaction would be 'a sale' within the meaning of the Act even where it is expressly stated at the time of sale that it was intended for external use only. The question with which we are seized had not come up for decision before the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case. Mangaldas v. State of Maharashtra : AIR 1966 SC 128, was a case where the turmeric powder having contained pollen stalk was held to be adulterated. In the case at hand, we are not concerned with extraneous matter like pollen stalk, but with another type of food grain (millet),