Mahendra Bhushan, J. - (1.) The accused-respondent was acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge, Alwar vide his judgment dated 5-12-72 in a case under section 7/16(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (Act No. 37 of 1974t (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Hence this appeal by the Municipal Council, Alwar.
(2.) Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that Shambhu Dutt (PW 1) was posted as Food Inspector on September 29, 1966. On that day, he went to the business premises of M/s. Ganga Sahai Girraj Prashad, Kedalganj, Alwar, which deals in 'Deshi Ghee' also. At that time, Girraj Prasad accused-respondent was at the shop and Shambhu Dutt (PW 1), Food Inspector, purchased 450 Grams of 'Deshi Ghee' and paid its price Rs. 4.50 p. It was divided in three equal parts and was filled in clean bottles, each of which was wrapped, corked and sealed in accordance with the rules. One sample of 'Deshi Ghee' was sent to the Public Analyst who examined it vide its report (Ex. P. 3) and found as follows - 1. Butyro-refractometer reading at 400C- 41.8 2. Reichert Value 31.5 3. Free Fatty Acids Oleic Acid 3.75% 4. Moisture 1.39% 5. Sesame Oil Test Negative 6. Added colouring matter Nil In the opinion of the Public Analyst, the sample of 'Ghee' was adulterated, as it did not conform to the prescribed standards of purity. After obtaining the sanction of the Municipal Commissioner, Alwar, a complaint was filed against the accused-respondent. The learned Magistrate convicted the accused under section 7/16(1) of the Act, and sentenced him till the rising of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, or in default of payment of fine to further suffer two months simple imprisonment. The accused-respondent appealed to the Sessions Judge, Alwar, who accepted the appeal and acquitted the accused-respondent of the charge under section 7/16( i) of the Act.
(3.) We have heard the learned Advocate for the Municipal Council, Alwar, and the learned Advocate for the accused-respondent. As it is an appeal against acquittal, we also granted an opportunity to the learned Advocate for the respondent to support the judgment of acquittal on any other ground.;