N.N.Sharma, J. - (1.) This appeal is directed against the order dated 1-3-77 by Shri Yashpal Lukadiya learned Magistrate 1st Class Agra in case No. 1570 of 76 by which respondent was acquitted on 1-3-77 of the charge under section 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.
(2.) This appeal arose under following circumstances:- It appears that on 19th March 74 at about 4.25 P.M. at his shop under the style Basdeo Prasad and Sons in Jauhari Bazar Agra within the limits of Nagar Mahapalika Agra respondent No. 1 was found selling table vinegar by Sri R.N. Chaturvedi, Food Inspector P.W. 1. Food Inspector disclosed his identity by serving notice Exh. Ka. 1 on respondent and purchased 600 gms. vinegar for a sum of Rs. 1.65 Np. Receipt for it was procured by him from respondent No. 1 vide Exh. Ka 2. The sample was divided in three equal portions in accordance with rules in presence of witnesses Mewa Singh and Arjun Das. A part of the sample was sent to Public Analyst Lucknow who found that the acetic acid contents were less than permissible minimum limit of 3.75 gms. per KO ml. The sample contained only 3.4 gms. per 100 ml. vide report Exh. Ka 5 dated 30-5-74. On receipt of this report appellant was informed through registered post and necessary sanction for prosecution was procured from Medical Officer of Health vide Exh. Ka 6. Complaint was submitted against appellant who denied that he was served with a notice by Food Inspector although receipt was procured from him. The Vinegar was also purchased by Food Inspector weighing 600 gms. for Rs. 1.65 but the price was not paid. As regards the deficiency in acetic acid he stated that he had sifted the acid through a cloth which resulted in lesser quantity of acetic acid being detected by Public Analyst.
(3.) Prosecution examined Food Inspector Sri. R.N. Chaturvedi P.W. 1 and Mewa Singh P.W. 2 in support of sample, and they also proved Exhs. Ka 1 to 7 relied upon by prosecution. No evidence was adduced in defence. Learned Magistrate recorded the acquittal as the sample was less and not seized in accordance with Appendix 5 of rule A 20.01 read with rule 22 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. At least 500 gms. of sample should have been sent to Public Analyst while in this case Food Inspector simply sent 200 gras, of sample. It was held in Rajal Das v. State of Maharashtra 1975 (1) FAC 1 . that in view of the contravention of aforesaid rule the accused had to be acquitted.;