STATE, BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Vs. IRUDAYAN
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
STATE, BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
Click here to view full judgement.
Somasundaram, J. -
(1.) THIS appeal is by the State and it is against a judgment of acquittal in a case under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.
(2.) THE prosecution arose in the following circumstances. P.W. 1, the Food Inspector of Ulundarpet, purchased 300 ml. of pea flour from the Respondent who is running a maligal shop in that place on 27th June 1967 for 53 paise as per receipt Ex. P. 2. He divided the flour thus purchased into three parts, put the same in three bottles, seised them, gave one bottle to the Respondent, retained one with him and seat the third to the Public Analyst. On analysis, the Analyst found that the pea flour was adulterated since it contained 75 per cent of tapioca flour and was also artificially coloured (coaltar dyes) in contravention of Rule 23 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. The Respondent was then put up for trial. When questioned in court he slated that he did nos sell the flour in question as 'food' for human consumption and added that he had kept the same for sate as food for cattle. D. Ws. 1 and 2 were examined by him for substantiating his defence.
(3.) OBSERVING that the prosecution has failed to prove that the pea flour was sold for human consumption, the learned Magistrate acquitted the Respondent.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.