The judgment emphasized the importance of preventing public health hazards and the significance of the Public Analyst's report in protecting citizens from adulterated food.

An order of acquittal in a case under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, as amended by Act 35 of 1976, hereinafter referred to as the Act, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thodupuzha, in C.C. 145/79, is challenged in this criminal appeal filed by the Food Inspector, Thodupuzha Circle. On March 27, 1979 at 5 p.m. the Food Inspector, Alacode Panchayat, Thodupuzha Circle (P.W. 1) inspected the factory run by the respondent, Managing Partner. The Tropical Fruit Products, Alacode for the purpose of purchasing a sample of a food article which the concern was manufacturing for sale. Accused 2 and 3 before the trial Court are the other partners of this concern. The respondent was manufacturing in his factory synthetic vinegar, orange squash, etc. under a licence granted by the local panchayat and also a licence granted under the Act. At the time of inspection, the respondent was present in the factory and PW. 1 found a number of bottles of vinegar kept for sale in the factory. In order to take a sample of synthetic vinegar, which is an article of food, PW. 1 served a notice in Form No. 6 (Ex. P. 2) on the respondent. Thereafter he purchased one bottle of synthetic vinegar from the respondent after paying him its price. Ex. P. 3 is the voucher issued by the respondent acknowledging receipt of its price. P.W. 1 opened the bottle purchased by him and sampled the same in accordance with the provisions of the Act in the presence of witnesses and the respondent. The sample purchased by PW. 1 was divided into three equal parts and was filled in three clean and dry bottles and each part of the sample was duly packed and sealed and label containing sample No. 6 was pasted on each of the sample bottles. Everything enjoined under the Act and rules framed thereunder was complied with by PW. 1. A mahazar Ex. P. 4 was prepared on the spot attested by 2 witnesses and also by the respondent. One part of the sample taken was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis along with Form VII memorandum. The remaining two samples were forwarded to the Local (Health) authority along with two copies of Form VII Memorandum. An intimation as required under the provisions of the Act and the rules was sent to the respondent. On analysis, as per Ex. P. 6 report of the Public Analyst the sample was adulterated and did not conform to the standard prescribed for synthetic vinegar under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. Thereafter, PW. 1 filed a complaint before the trial Court against the respondent and 2 others who are partners.

2. In support of the prosecution case, besides PW. 1, PW. 2, PW. 3, PW. 4 and PW. 5, the Executive Officer of the local Panchayat, were examined and documents Exs. P. 1 to P. 11 were marked.

3. The respondent when examined on the prosecution evidence admitted that the Tropical Fruit Products, Alacode, is a partnership concern; that he is the managing partner and that the 2 other accused are also partners. As regards the evidence of PW. 1 that he purchased a sample of synthetic vinegar from the respondent, he admitted the visit of PW. 1 to his factory, but stated that the vinegar was not kept for sale; that it was kept for testing and the bottles were not sealed and labelled. He admitted receipt of Ex. P. 2 notice and issuance of Ex. P. 3 bill.

4. On behalf of the respondent, D.W. 1, a Chemist of Malabar Coast Products, D.W. 2, a neighbour and D.W. 3, the respondent himself, were examined and there were no documents to be marked on his side.

5. The learned Magistrate on a due consideration of the evidence found that the article of food from which the sample was taken was intended for sale. But, on the ground that the sampling was defective due to violation of R. 22A of the rules framed under the Act and also finding that the prosecution has failed to prove that accused 2 and 3 are in any way connected with the management of the firm, acquitted all the accused.

6. Attacking the judgment of acquittal,