STATE BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Vs. RAJENDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed by the State under Section 378, Crl.P.C, against the judgment, dated 21st August, 1981 in C.C. No. 86 of 1981 on the file of the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kumbakonam, finding the accused/Respondent herein not guilty under Ss.7(i), 16(1)(a)(i) read with 2(i -A) (a) and (m) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (37 of 1954 as amended upto Act 34 of 1976) (hereinafter called the 'Act'), and acquitting him under Section 248(1), Crl.P.C.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution against the accused/Respondent herein is that on 20th December, 1980 at about 5:30 a.m., in front of Door No. 32, Dr. Besant Road, Kumbakonam, the Respondent herein was found in possession of adulterated cow's milk for sale, and on analysis of the same, the Public Analyst has opined that the sample was deficient in solids not fat to the extent of at least 47 per cent. Clause A. 11.01.11 in Appendix B to the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 requires that cow's milk shall contain not less than 3.5% fat and not less than 8.5% solids not fat, and therefore, the Respondent herein has committed an offence punishable under Ss.7(i), 16(1) (a) (i), read with Section 2(i -A) (a) and (m) of the Act.

(3.) THE case of the prosecution can be briefly stated as follows: - P.W.1, the Food Inspector attached to Kumbakonam Municipality has got the authority to take sample and also institute proceedings in court under the provisions of the Act. On 20th December, 1980 at about 5:30 a.m., P.W.1 was standing near the building bearing door No. 32, Dr. Besant Road. During that time, the accused brought milk in a 'Kudam' carrying the same in a cycle. The Respondent herein was stopped by P.W.1. P.W.1 asked the Respondent herein as to which place he was taking the milk. On the cycle carrier, there was a 'Kudam' containing milk, and there were also four other 'Chombus' kept on the side of the said 'Kudam' containing milk. The Respondent herein was carrying about 40 litres of milk on that day. The Respondent is the owner of the said milk. According to P.W.1, the Respondent informed him that he was taking the milk for selling it. Thereafter P.W.1 called P.W.2, Pitchai who was standing there as a witness informing that he was taking sample from the milk that was brought by the Respondent. According to P.W.1, the Respondent had also given his consent for the sample being taken from his milk. Thereafter, P.W.2, prepared two notices under Form VI. He gave one of the notices thus prepared to the Respondent. In the said notice that was served to the Respondent, the signature of both the Respondent as well as P.W.2, were obtained by P.W.1. Ex.P1 is the copy of the said notice. The Respondent was also having 500 ml. and 200 ml. measures with him at that time. 'Kudam' was stirred by P.W.1, and thereafter 700 ml. of cow's milk was bought by P.W.1, by paying Rs. 1 -05 as price for the same. Ex.P2 is the cash receipt for the same. In Ex.P2 the signature of the Respondent and P.W.2 were obtained by P.W.1.