STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. KESAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VIDE this judgment, two Criminal Appeals No. 221 of DBA of 1987 (State of Punjab v. Kesar Singh) and Criminal Appeal No. 252/DBA of 1987 (State of Punjab v. Chiranji Lal), shall stand disposed of. These two criminal appeals have been filed by the State of Punjab against the orders of acquittal dated 20.10.1986 and 21 10.1986 respectively passed by the trial Magistrate for an'offence punishable under Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter called the Act')

(2.) BRIEF facts of these two appeals are as follow : -

(3.) IN Criminal Appeal No. 221/DBA of 1987. the Food Inspector took sample of 'Suji' from the shop of Kesar Singh on 28.5.1985. In due course, the sample collected in accordance with the required formalities was sent to the public Analyst who analysed the contents of the sample received on 29.5.1985 and gave his report Ext. PD signed on 27.6.1985 The Public Analyst found that the food in question. contained 17 (seventeen) living Sundies, four fragments of dead sundies, four living Sursies and one dead sursi and accordingly opined that the contents of the sample contained twenty -two living and dead insects and four insect fragements. On the basis of the report of the Public Analyst, Food Inspector, Rakesh Kumar (PW11) filed a criminal complaint dated 7.8.1985 in the 'Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala. In paragraph one of the complaint Ext. PF, it was averred by the Food Inspector, Dr. Rakesh Kumar (PW I) that he had been authorised to launch prosecution vide the Punjab' Government Notification No. FD (4) -Pb 82/25769 dated 29th November, 1982 under Section 9 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. It is not disputed by the State counsel that this Notification had been issued by the Food (Health) authority of the State of Punjab. Keeping in view the result of the Public Analyst vide report Ext. PD, the trial ',Magistrate acquitted Kesar Chand, respondent of the charge precisely on the ground that the food in question could not be termed as adulterated one as the presence of the dead or alive insects had not rendered the food unfit for human consumption and was not opined so by the Public Analyst.