State vs Sambandam and Others

K.M. Natarajan, J.—This appeal is directed against the order of acquittal passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Pattukkottai.

The brief facts, which are necessary for disposal of this appeal can be stated as follows: The Respondent herein were/prosecuted for an offence u/s 7(1)(a) read with Sections 16(aa) and 2(a) and 2(jj) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, on the allegation that the first Respondent is the owner of the tea stall known as ''Sammanthappa''. The second Respondent is employed in the said tea stall and he was preparing tea and selling the same. The Food Inspector purchased Tea infusion for Rs. 3/- and thereafter divided the same and sealed them after observing all formalities and preparing necessary records according to the Rules and after obtaining the opinion of the public analyst to the effect that the sample contains coaltar dye and filed a complaint against them and in support of the said complaint the Food Inspector was examined as P.W.1 and Exs.P1 to P16 were marked. The plea of the accused was one of denial. The learned trial Judge, after taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence came to the conclusion that the prosecution has not proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and consequently acquitted the accused. Aggrieved by the same, the State has preferred this appeal.

After hearing the learned Government Advocate and also learned Counsel for the Respondents, this Court finds that the opinion given by the Public Analyst was only in respect of the tea infusion, which contains sugar as well as water and which were used in preparing tea in the tea stall and that there is no standard prescribed for the said tea infusion and as such the opinion given by the Public Analyst cannot be held liable for the offence, even if it is accepted that the conviction is not sustainable for the reasons stated in the order. In support of his contention, learned Counsel for the Respondents drew our attention to the decisions viz. Sahib Singh Vs. U.T. Chandigarh, and Corn Products Company, Bombay Vs. Food Inspector, Tirunelveli Municipality, Tirunelveli, . The tea has been defined as item 14 of Appendix B and that does not include the tea infusion. The learned Government Advocate is not able to state whether there is any standard prescribed for tea infusion viz., the mixture of tea, sugar and water and in respect of the same, the sample had been taken and sent for Public Analyst and on the basis of the report of the Public Analyst the prosecution has been launched. Applying the ratio laid down in the above decisions to the facts of this case and in view of the fact that the standard prescribed for tea cannot be applied to the tea infusion this Court has no hesitation in holding that the acquittal of the Respondents cannot be in any way said to be illegal or improper, and the order of the court below requires any interference by this Court. Since, this Court has taken the view that acquittal can be upheld by this Court on the ground this Court does not propose to go into the other grounds and the reasons given by the learned trial judge. The order of acquittal is confirmed and this appeal is dismissed.