Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 711 (MAD)

State v. Mohamed Abubakkar & Another

2002-07-31

A.K.RAJAN

body2002
Judgment :- The appeal is against the order of acquittal of A1 and A2. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: The Food Inspector of Mayiladuthurai Panchayat Union inspected the shop of A2 on 14.02.1988 at 12.30 p. m; that after following the formalities under the rules, he found the groundnut oil adulterated and framed charges under Section 7 (1); 16 (1) (a) read with Section 2 (1) (1a) (a) (m) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The Trial Court after considering the evidence, both oral and documentary, acquitted the accused under Section 255 (1) of Code of Criminal Procedure. Against the said judgment, the State has preferred the above appeal. 3. To prove the case, the prosecution has examined the Food Inspector as P.W.1, and marked Exs. P.1 to P.11. There is no oral or documentary evidence on the side of the defence. 4. P.W.1, the Food Inspector of Mayiladuthurai Panchayat Union would state that on 14.02.1988 at 12.30 p.m., he inspected the maligai shop situated at Railway Station Road, Ananthadanapuram to take food sample; that the accused was having five litres of groundnut oil in an open tin for sale in his maligai shop; that he informed the accused about the intention of taking food sample of groundnut oil for analysis for cost and served Form VI Notice on the accused; that he purchased 0.600 ml. Of groundnut oil from him for R.13.20, obtained cash receipt from him; that thereafter following the formalities under the rules, he packed the groundnut oil and sent the samples for testing; that after the Public Analyst, Coimbatore in his report has certified that the sample is adulterated as it does not contain the standard for groundnut oil, he filed a complaint under Section 7 (1) and 16 (1)(a)(i) read with Section (2)(1a) (a) and (n) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 5. Considering the evidence on record, the trial Court found the accused not guilty, on the ground that the public analyst report filed before the Court was not informed immediately to the accused which act is violation of the provisions of Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and, therefore, the Court below acquitted the accused. 6. 5. Considering the evidence on record, the trial Court found the accused not guilty, on the ground that the public analyst report filed before the Court was not informed immediately to the accused which act is violation of the provisions of Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and, therefore, the Court below acquitted the accused. 6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the reasoning given by the Magistrate that copy of the public analyst report was given to the accused five days immediately after the date of complaint which violates the provisions of Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, is not sustainable. As per amended Act 1984, 10 days' time is given to forward the copy of complaint, from the date of complaint, to the accused. Therefore, the reasoning given by the Magistrate is not sustainable and hence, it is liable to be set aside. 7. Considering the fact that the incident took place in the year 1988 and the food (groundnut oil) that was sold is 600 ml., I am not inclined to impose any sentence. 8. In the circumstances, with the above modification, the appeal is dismissed.