The central legal point established in the judgment is that the competency of the Food Inspector is crucial in determining the validity of samples taken under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

This appeal by the State is preferred against the judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Madurai, acquitting the accused/respondent who was charged for an offence under Sections 2(1a)(a)(m), 7(i) & 16(1)(a)(1) r/w Rule 5 Appendix 17.11 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act..

2. The case of the appellant, in-brief, is as follows:

a. On 25.9.1990, at 10.00 a.m. P.W.1, Food Inspector of Madurai Corporation went to the shop, namely, Amudham Store, at door No.1/5, T.T. Road, Arapalayam, Madurai Town, along with one Periasamy, to take food sample. At that time accused No.2, respondent herein, to whom P.W.1 introduced himself, was selling the food articles. On enquiry, in the presence of P.W.2, Chinnasamy, accused No.2 revealed that the shop was belonged to the accused No.1 and he was only a sales man. P.W.1 purchased 750 gm gingili oil at Rs.24/- and got a cash receipt, Ex.P.2 for the same. After preparing Form VI to send the gingili oil for chemical analysis, P.W.1 served a copy of Form VI, Ex.P.2, on the accused No.2. Thereafter, P.W.1 divided the sample into three equal parts and after observing all the formalities, sealed them in three clean dry bottles and sent one bottle to the public analyst for analysis. Having obtained a report, wherein it is stated that the food article was adulterated, laid a complaint against both the accused.

b. After perusing the materials and evidence placed on record, the trial Court acquitted both the accused. Aggrieved, the appellant has filed this appeal against the accused No.2 alone.

3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would contend that P.W.1 has followed the procedures strictly while taking the samples and the same were sent for analysis and on the basis of the analyst report which would reveal that the sample sent by the P.W.1 is adulterated, he laid a complaint and without considering the materials and evidence and also the analyst report, the trial Court had committed an error by acquitting both the accused and therefore, the judgment of the trial court may be set aside.

4. In reply, the learned counsel for the respondent would contend that P.W.1 was not authorised to take samples from the shop of the accused and also he did not undergo any specific training for a period of three months in any authorised institution. In such circumstances, the entire proceedings of P.W.1 is not sustainable under law and to buttress his contention he relied on a decision in STATE BY THE FOOD INSPECTOR OF PERAMBALUR TOWN PANCHAYAT, REPERESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR VS. CHIDAMBARAM (1987 L.W.(Crl.) 426).

5. Now the main question to be decided is whether the P.W.1, Food Inspector, is duly qualified or competent to take samples or not, on which question the present appeal is surviving.

6. Though the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would contend that P.W.1 took the samples after strictly following the procedures laid down in the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, he could not reply to the question putforth by the learned counsel for the respondent that P.W.1 neither is duly qualified nor undergone any specific training as prescribed in the Rules. Under these circumstances, to find an answer to the above contention, it is proper to go into the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2.

7. In this case, two witnesses have been examined, but when P.W.2 turned hostile, the only evidence available is P.W.1, which, therefore, requires careful scrutiny.

8. In para 4 and 5 of the decision in STATE BY THE FOOD INSPECTOR OF PERAMBALUR TOWN PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR VS. CHIDAMBARAM (1987 L.W.(Crl.) 426) which relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent, it is observed as follows.

“4. The area of controversy is limited in scope. The Food Inspector, P.W.2, has categorically admitted in his evidence that for taking sample, he did not undergo any training but he is working as a Food Inspector from 18th February, 1966 onwards. It is contended by the learned Government Advoc