STATE BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Vs. ASHOKAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State represented by the learned Public Prosecutor has directed this Criminal Appeal questioning the order of acquittal made in C.C. 57 of 1979, on the file of the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Villupuram, acquitting the accused, of the offence punishable under Ss.7(1), 16(1) (a) (1) and 2 (ia) (a) (m) 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: -P.W.1 Food Inspector attached to Kottakuppam town Panchayat on 14th December, 1978 at about 9:30 a.m. purchased 660 millilitres of cow's milk from the Respondent herein for Rs. 1.25 as per the cash receipt Ex.P2 after serving Form No. 6 notice on him. Ex.P2 is the receipt passed by the accused, accepting a sum of Rs. 1.25 towards the price of the milk purchased by P.W.1 The food article, namely, milk was intended for sale and for human consumption. P.W.1 divided the milk purchased into three equal parts, added formalin to the same, poured the same into three empty dry bottles, closed them with cork and sealed them with mark No. 131. The sealed bottles were wrapped with sheets and slips were pasted and thereafter they were sealed. The Local Health Officer signed on the slips as well as on the cover. The signature of the accused was also obtained. When one of the sample bottles was sent to the Chemical Analyst it was found on an analysis of the sample of the milk, that the same was deficient in solid fat to the extent of at least 28 per cent as per Ex.P3 certificate issued by the Analyst. On receipt of Ex.P3, P.W.1 instituted the prosecution. Ex.P4 notice under Section 13(2) was served on the accused and his signature was obtained therein. M.O.1 is the sample bottle that was produced before the court. P.W.2, Arumugham and P.W.3 Jani have attested Exs.P1 and P2.

(3.) THE question for consideration in his appeal is whether the prosecution has proved the charge against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The accused denied the offence. The court below acquitted the accused on the ground that there was violation of R. 9 -A and 13(2) of the Rules. R.9 -A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, reads as follows: