State by Public Prosecutor vs Syed

Swamidurai, J.—This is an appeal filed by the State against the order of acquittal made by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate,

Valliyur in C.C. No. 353 of 1982 acquitting the accused of the offence punishable under Sections 7(1) and 16(1)(a.i) read with 2(i.a)(a) and (m)

of the Food Adulteration Act.

The case of the prosecution is that P.S. Paramasivam, Food Inspector attached to Thesayanvilai Panchayath inspected the shop of the accused

situated at No. 277-C, 12th Ward, Highways Main Road in the said Thesayanvilai Panchayath and found him selling grocery articles. On 27-4-

1982 at 3.00 p.m. P.W.1 purchased 540 milligrams of coconut oil kept for sale. He suspected the oil as adulterated and divided the same into

three parts in a dry and clean empty bottles and sent them for analysis. According to him, he sealed the bottle without any leakage and kept in an

airtight bottle and on 28-4-1982 he sent the bottle to public analyst, Madras and he received the acknowledgement subsequently from which it is

found that the public analyst at Madras received the sample only on 3-5-1982.

Learned Magistrate acquitted the accused on the ground that one of the bottles sent for analysis was found leaking and the other two bottles

appear to be alright. It was contended by learned Counsel for the accused that the bottles were not properly sealed before they were sent for

analysis. Therefore P.W.1 has not followed the procedure as required under the Act. The second ground on which learned Magistrate acquitted

the accused is that P.W.1 has seized the sample on 27-4-1982 at about 3.00 p.m. and he sent the sample to the public analyst, Madras on 28-4-

1982, but the sample reached Madras only on 3-5-1982. It is therefore contended by him that the delay in sending the samples will vitiate the trial.

Learned Counsel for the accused cited a decision before the lower Court reported in Law Weekly Criminal dated 24-3-1982 at page No. 431,

wherein it was held that the sample was taken by the analyst on 20-8-1978, but it was received by the public analyst only on 25-8-1978 and that

the absence of any explanation for the delay vitiated the trial. In this case also, there is a delay of six days, computing from 28-4-1982 till 3-5-

1982. This delay has also not been explained by the prosecution. Therefore, the prosecution has not proved the case beyond reasonable doubt.

The findings of the lower Court are correct and the appeal is therefore dismissed.