M.D. Bhatt, J. - (1.)This is the Municipal Corporation's appeal against the acquittal of the respondent-accused of the offence punishable under Sec. 7 read with Sec. 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.
(2.)It was in the matter of sample of refined ground nut oil purchased by the Food Inspector M. H. Bari from the respondent-accused Baggumal's shop on 21-11-74 that the respondent-accused has been put up for trial under Sec. 7/16 of the P. F. A. Act, consequent to the Public Analyst's report Ex. P. 5, showing the sample to be below the prescribed quality ; and as such, adulterated. Main contention of the respondent-accused was that there was no proof regarding M. H. Bari being a duly appointed Food Inspector for the area. His further contention was that the proper procedure had not been followed in taking the sample, inasmuch as the sample had not been divided in three equal parts but the three bottles had been filled directly from the oil-tin.
(3.)The trial court after scrutinising the evidence, held that the appointment of the Food Inspector was not duly proved. It was, next, held that the Food Inspector Bari's oral evidence in the matter of taking the sample being not duly corroborated by other panch witnesses, his statement was unreliable and as such, it was held that the procedure adopted by him in taking the sample was not free from doubt. In view of these findings, the respondent-accused was acquitted of the offence in question. Hence, now the Municipal Corporation's present appeal.