Judgment.- This is an appeal filed by the State against an order of acquittal in a case under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, (hereinafter called the Act).

2. The respondent, the accused in the case was tried by the Sub-Divisional (Judicial) Magistrate, Neyyattinkara, for an offence punishable under section 7 read with section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act on the allegation that on 22nd January, 1976 at 2.15 p.m. he sold to the Food Inspector (P.W. 1) 450 grams of cumin seeds out of a larger quantity kept in his shop for sale and the same was, on analysis, found to be adulterated. As per Exhibit P-5, the report of the Public Analyst, the sample did not conform to the standard prescribed for cumin seed and was therefore adulterated. The respondent pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against him. In the course of the trial the sample given to the accused by the Food Inspector was sent through Court for analysis to the Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta. Exhibit D-1 is the certificate issued by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate holding that there was conflict and variation between Exhibit P-5 and Exhibit D-1, acquitted the accused.

3. Attacking this order of acquittal, the learned Public Prosecutor contended that the reasoning given by the trial Court for the acquittal is palpably wrong and unsustainable in law and on the facts, that: as per Exhibit D-1 which has superseded Exhibit P-5, the sample was adulterated under section 2(1)(f) of the Act and that therefore the order of acquittal has to be set aside and the respondent be convicted for the offence with which he was charged.

4. Sri P. Sukumaran Nair, the learned advocate appearing for the respondent, submitted that even if the reasoning given by the trial Court is wrong, the order of acquittal is correct and sustainable as there are other valid grounds to support it.

5. It has been sufficiently proved in the case that the accused sold cumin seeds to P.W. 1 in the manner and under the circumstances alleged. There is the evidence of P.W. 1, the Food Inspector in support of this corroborated by the evidence of P.W. 3, peon attached to P.W. 1’s office, Exhibit P-1 the notice issued to the respondent in Form VI, Exhibit P-2 the receipt issued by the respondent acknowledging the receipt of the price of the article purchased by P.W. 1 and Exhibit P-3 the mahazar prepared on the spot.

6. The following is the standard prescribed for cumin seeds under the Rules framed under the Act. (Item A.05.09):

“The proportion of extraneous matter including dust, dirt, stones, lumps of earth, chalf, stem or straw shall not exceed 7.0 per cent. by weight. The proportion of edible seeds other than cumin seeds shell not exceed 5.0 per cent by weight.”

Exhibit P-5, the report of the Public Analyst, states that the sample contained 10.5 per cent. extraneous seeds by weight and 5.6 per cent. extraneous matter including dust, stones, lumps of earth, chaff, stem or straw by weight and therefore the sample did not conform to the standard and was adulterated. Under sub-section (3) of section 13 of the Act:

“The certificate issued by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory under subjection (2) shall supersede the report given by the Public Analyst under sub-section (1)”;

and under sub-section (5)

“Any document purporting to be a report signed by a Public Analyst, unless it has been superseded under sub-section (3) or any document puporting to be a certificate signed by the Director of the Central Food Labouratory, may be used as evidence of the facts stated therein in any proceeding under this Act or under sections 272 to 278 of the Indian Penal Code (XLV of 1860).”

Exhibit D-1 is the certificate issued by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory under sub-section (2) of section 13. By virtue of the proviso to sub-section (5) of section 13

“any document purporting to be a certificate signed by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory shall be final an

Click Here to Read the rest of this document