STATE BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Vs. RAMAMOORTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State represented by the learned Public Prosecutor has directed this criminal appeal questioning the order of acquittal and made in C.C. No. 146 of 1979 on the file of the court of the learned Special Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ulundurpet, acquitting the accused-Respondent herein for the offence punishable under Ss.2(1-a)(a)(m), 7(1) and 16(1)(a)(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").

(2.) The brief facts of the case, as disclosed from the oral and documentary evidence, can be stated as follows:

(3.) When questioned under Sec. 313 , Crimial P.C. the accused-Respondent herein stated that he has not committed any offence. As the lower court has considered that an offence had been committed by the accused-Respondent herein, it had framed the charge under Ss.2(1-a)(a)(m), 7(1) and 16(1)(a)(1) of the Act and questioned the accused-Respondent herein, and the Respondent herein pleaded not guilty, When questioned under Sec. 246(4), Crimial P.C. the accused-Respondent herein wanted to recall P.W.1 and cross examine him. After the cross examination by the accused-Respondent, no witness was examined on behalf of the complainant-Appellant herein. Though the Respondent herein had stated that he had witnesses to examine on his side, no witness was examined by him on his behalf. On the question whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt, the lower Court had held that the formalities that had to be followed under R.16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, as well as the procedure to be followed by P.W.1 Food Inspector under Sec. 11(1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, were not followed by P.W.1 and as such the prosecution had not established its case against the Respondent herein, and acquitted him under Sec. 248(1), Crimial P.C.