STATE Vs. K RANGARAJU CHETTIAR
LAWS(MAD)-1970-11-8
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Decided on November 20,1970

STATE BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Appellant
VERSUS
K.RANGARAJU CHETTIAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) THIS is an appeal filed by the State against the order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ariyalur acquitting the accused-respondent, Rangaraju Chettiar (A. 1 ). In the Court of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ariyalur the prosecution was launched against A-l and two others. A-l and A-2 are the partners of the grocery and general shop under the name and style of Gobi Krishna Stores at Puvalur P. W. 1, the Food Inspector went to the said shop to take food sample. Then A3 was seated in the shop transacting the business. P. W. 1 asked A-3 whether he got any flour variety for samples. (A. I to A. 3 are all related to each other ). A-3 said that he got Bengal gram flour, pea flour and rice flour. P. W. 1 demanded Bengal gram flour and pea flour for sample in the presence of P. Ws. 2 and 3. P. W. 1 further served Ex. P. 1 notice on A-3 to take sample of pea flour for analysis He purchased 320 milligrams of pea flour on payment of 45 paise under Ex. P. 2 bill and Ex. P. 3 cash receipt. Then P. W. 1 divided the said 320 milligrams of pea flour into three parts equally and put them into three clean dry empty bottles and corked, sealed and labelled the bottles bearing No. 75 and gave one such sample bottle to A-l under Ex. P. 4 acknowledgment. P. Ws. 2 and 3 were present throughout and have attested Exs. P. I, P. 3 and P. 4. Then P. W. 1 took the other two sample bottles to his office and sent one sample bottle with Form No. VII and specimen seal impression to the analyst. The analyst found the sample not pure pea flour as represented. The sample contained 50% of kesari dal flour under Ex. P. 5, report of the analyst.
(2.) THE plea of the accused No. 1 is that flour kept in the shop for sale was intended for "pavu pattana pasaik-kaga" in front of the shop and he was told by his shop boy that sample flour was taken in his absence. A. 2 stated that A. I is looking after the grocery shop and he is not attending to the grocery shop business, but he is doing cloth business at Woraiyur. A. 3 stated that he is studying in college. But on 3-5-1967 he was at A-l's shop at Puvalur to inform A-l about some marriage and as A-l was not in his shop he waited in the shop near the cash counter. P. W. 1 asked him to prepare the bill at his dictation. P. W. 1 obtained his signature in two or three papers.
(3.) THE learned trial Magistrate found that the prosecution has not beyond all reasonable doubt proved that the adulterated pea flour sample was kept in the accused's shop for sale for human consumption and not for cattle or poultry fodder and for weaving purposes. The trial Magistrate gave the finding that the prosecution has not proved beyond all reasonable doubt that A-2 and A-3 are in charge of or responsible for the conduct of the business of the shop. Probably, in view of this finding the State confined this appeal to A-l alone.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.