FOOD INSPECTOR Vs. DIGIDAM KRISHNA MURTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred by the Food Inspector, represented by the Public Prosecutor, aggrieved by the judgment dtd. 17/5/2010 in CC No.844 of 2008 by the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jangaon acquitting the respondent-accused for the offence under Sec. 16 (1) (a) (i) and (ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (in short 'PFA Act').

(2.) The case of the appellant was that the Food Inspector, Division III, Warangal District inspected the shop of the respondent-accused, by name, M/s.Dindigam Krishna Murthy Rice and Kirana Merchant, D.No.3/2/82, Old Beet Bazar, Jangaon, Warangal District on 11/9/2003 at 3.30 PM and collected samples of Toordal from a open gunny bag of about 40 kgs., on suspicion that it might be containing added colour. After purchasing the same, drawn three samples under the cover of panchanama and sent one part of the sealed sample jar to the Public Analyst, State Food Laboratory, Hyderabad on 12/9/2003 under intimation to Local Health Authority, Zone-V, Warangal and deposited the remaining two samples before the Assistant Food Controller and Local Health Authority, Zone-V, Warangal for safe custody. The Public Analyst sent his report dtd. 6/10/2003 opining that the sample contained synthetic colour Tartazine and was therefore, adulterated. The Assistant Food Controller received the said report on 16/10/2003 and forwarded the same to the complainant. The complainant sent a report to the State Food (Health) Authority for sanction and the State Food Health Authority accorded written consent vide order dtd. 4/10/2004 under Sec. 20(1) of the PFA Act for launching prosecution against the respondent-accused for sale of adulterated toor dal. The complainant filed the complaint before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Jangaon which was taken on file for the offence under Sec. 2 (ia)(j) and 7(i)&(v) read with Sec. 16(1)(a)(i)&(ii) of the PFA Act against the respondent-accused on 7/5/2005 and numbered the same as CC No.249 of 2005. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The case was subsequently transferred to the Court of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class and numbered as CC No.844 of 2008.

(3.) Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent.