State by Public Prosecutor vs Pandian Pillai and others

Krishnaswamy Reddy, J.—This appeal has been preferred by the learned Public Prosecutor against the order of acquittal of the Respondents, by the Additional I Class Magistrate II, Madurai.

The Prosecution case is this. The Food Inspector, Madurai Corporation filed a complaint against the two Respondents under S.(2)(i) read with 7(1) and R.47 punishable under S. 16(l)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act alleging that the first Respondent had offered "Tower" mark syrup for sale to public as food through the second Respondent and that on 28th June 1972 at about 9 A.M. at Munichalai Road in Madurai, the second Respondents sold the syrup manufactured by the first Respondent to the Food Inspector, which on analysis was found to contain 1000 parts per million of Saccharin. It is the case of the prosecution that both the Respondents committed the said offence as addition of saccharin to syrup is prohibited under the rules.

It is not disputed by the Respondents that the Food Inspector (PW.1) took temple of syrup from the second Respondent and that the first Respondent was the manufacturer of the said syrup. But, it was contended by the Respondents in the lower court that the trial of both the Respondents jointly, the first Respondent being the manufacturer and the second Respondent being a seller, was illegal and that the prosecution has not established that the specimen impression of the seal was sent separately by registered post under R.18 which is mandatory.

The Additional First Class Magistrate accepted both the contention and acquitted the Respondents. I may straightway say that the reasons given by the learned Magistrate are quite unsatisfactory and that his approach to the case is erroneous. The reason given by the learned Magistrate that the joint trial of both the Respondents together is illegal, is not supported by any decision and as pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor, the learned Magistrate has not properly applied the decision rendered by the Punjab High Court in AIR 1966 P.H 421. Even if the learned Magistrate was of the view that the joint trial was bad, he should have given an opportunity to the prosecution, in the Interests of justice, to split up the case and proceed with the trial separately .This cannot be a ground for the acquittal of the Respondents.

The second ground on which the acquittal was based was that the prosecution had not produced the acknowledgment granted by the Postal Department for the public Analyst having received the specimen impression of the seal. When it is challenged, the prosecution should have taken some time and produced the registered acknowledgment. But, again that cannot be a ground for acquittal as it is highly technical. The learned Magistrate, in the interests of justice, should have himself summoned such document, if it was available. Even otherwise, all official acts are presumed to be done in the course of the discharge of the duties.

But, however, I am not inclined to interfere with the order of acquittal for the reason that addition of saccharin was so negligible that no prudent officer will take action to prosecute the Respondents. The learned Public Prosecutor has fairly conceded that addition of saccharin was of negligible quantity. This being an appeal against the order of acquittal, I do not find any compelling reason to interfere with the order of acquittal. With these observations, this Appeal is dismissed.