State by Public Prosecutor vs Natarajan

Maheswaran, J.—This appeal by the State is against the judgment of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Mannargudi, acquitting

the respondent who has been charged for offences under Ss. 7(i), 16(1)(a)(i) and 2(ia)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

P.W.1, the Food Inspector, Mannargudi Municipality, purchased 750 ml. of mixture of cow''s milk and buffalo''s milk for 90 paise from the

respondent accused who was selling milk at a tea-shop in v.O.C. Road, Mannargudi, at about 8:45 a.m. on 30th December, 1977 and obtained a

receipt Ex.P3, for the same. He divided the milk so purchased into three equal parts and bottled them up in three clean dry bottles and added 20

drops of formalin, a privative, to each bottle and sealed the bottles and sent one such bottle to the Public Analyst and the other two to the Local

(Health) Authority. The report of the Analyst shows that the sample was deficient in solids-not-fat to an extent of at least 45 per cent. But the

learned Magistrate acquitted the accused on the ground (1) that the milk was not intended for sale; and (2) that there has not been a compliance of

the mandatory provisions of R. 16 and 18 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. The State is aggrieved and has file this appeal.

The acquittal of the accused on the ground that the milk was not intended for sale is not correct. The evidence of P.W.1 clearly shows that the

accused was selling milk at the tea-shop bearing No. 10 at V.O.C. Road in Mannargudi at about 8:15 a.m. on 30th December, 1977. Ex.P3 is the

receipt showing sale of the milk to the Food Inspector. In The Food Inspector, Calicut Corporation Vs. Cherukattil Gopalan and Another, the

Supreme Court has observed:

When there is a sale to the Food Inspector under the Act of an article of food, which is found to be adulterated, the accused will be guilty of an

offence punishable under S. 16(1)(a)(I) read with S. 7 of the Act. We further agree that the article of food which has been purchased by the Food

Inspector need not have been taken out from a larger quantity intended for sale. We are also of the opinion that the person from whom the article

of food has been purchased by the Food Inspector need not be a dealer as such in that article. We are not inclined to agree with the decisions

laying the contrary propositions.

As regards the compliance of R.16, I must point out that there is clear evidence of the fact that the Food Inspector has observed those rules. He

has clearly spoken about the manner of packing, and sealing of samples. Therefore, there is no violation of R.16. But as regards R.18, there

appears to be a clear violation. A reference to R.18 shows that a copy of the memorandum and a specimen impression of the seal used to seal the

packet shall be sent to the public analyst separately by registered post or delivered to him or to any person authorised by him. A perusal of Ex.P6,

Form VI, shows that the Food Inspector has stated that a copy of the seal used to seal the packet is being sent separately by registered post. But

there is no evidence that such a copy of the memorandum and a specimen impression of the seal have been sent to the Public Analyst. The Public

Prosecutor wants to rely the printed form in the Analyst''s report which shows that the seal fixed on the container and the outer cover of the sample

tallied with the specimen impression of the seal separately sent by the Food Inspector and the sample was in a condition fit for analysis. If only the

Food Inspector has stated that he has sent separately a copy of the memorandum with the specimen impression of the seal then the statement in

printed form of the Analyst''s report could be taken as corroborating the evidence of Food Inspector. But in the absence of any evidence by the

Food Inspector, the report of the Analyst cannot be used as evidence of the fact a copy of the memorandum with the specimen impression of the

seal has been sent to the Analyst. A single Judge of this Court has taken the same view in Ramalingam v. Food Inspector, Nagapattinam

Municipality 1979 L.W. (Crl.) 103. The order of acquittal is therefore correct and is confirmed and the revision is dismissed.