No openion regarding adulteration expressed by Public Analyst.

This appeal by the State is against acquittal

2. On 28-8-1984, at 12-30 p.m., P.W. 1, the Food Inspector attached to Virudhunagar Municipality accompanied by Sanitary Maistry, inspected the Oil Store situate at Door No. 110, Main Bazar, Virudhunagar. At that time, the respondent/accused, the proprietor of the Oil Store, was transacting the business. He was, it is said, dealing in various kinds of oil, such as gingelly oil, coconut oil and ground-nut oil. P.W. 1, it is said, expressed his intention of drawing of samples of coconut oil for purpose of analysis. The respondent/accused agreed for the same. Samples of coconut oil were drawn by P.W. 1, by complying with all formalities. One such sample had been sent to the Public Analyst, after due intimation to the Public Health Authority, to whom other two samples had been sent. The sample so sent to the Public Analyst was found to be adulterated, as revealed by his report, Exhibit P. 10.

3. After complying with the other formalities of serving with S. 13(2) notice etc., a complaint, in fact, had been laid before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Virudhunagar on 10-11-1984 against the respondent/accused for offences under sections 7(i) and 16(1)(a) read with S. 2(i-a) and (m) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short 'the Act') which was taken on file as C.C. No. 598 of 1984.

4. The case of the respondent/accused is one of denial.

5. Learned Magistrate, on consideration of the materials placed before him and after hearing the arguments of respective learned Counsel for the parties, rendered a verdict of acquittal on 23rd February, 1985 on the sold and lone ground on the Public Analyst, no expressing any opinion in his report to rule out the possibility of the non-conformation of the standard prescribed being solely due to natural causes and beyond the control of human agency, placing reliance on the decision in Gaffar Khan v. State of M.P. 1984 FAJ 108.

6. Learned Government Advocate would submit that the aforesaid decision, on which reliance had been placed by the trial Court for rendering the verdict of acquittal, is the resultant product of misconstruction and misreading of the relevant provisions of the Act and if the relevant provisions had been properly construed and interpreted, the intention reflected by those provisions would emerge to the surface, in crystal clear a fashion and therefore it is - he would say - that it is but proper for this Court to set aside the verdict of acquittal.

7. Learned Counsel for the respondent/accused though commenced his arguments in a flamboyant style, repelling the arguments of learned Government Advocate, however after some time, feeling that such arguments, if pursued, would not pay any dividend at all, was rest content in submitting that even in the extreme case of accepting the arguments, as projected by the other side, the verdict of acquittal, which has remained all along for the past six years and more, need not at all be disturbed, taking into account that the accused/respondent had undergone the agony and anguish of facing the prosecution on and from the time of taking the sample, that is to say, from 28-8-1984 till up to the rendering of the verdict of acquittal and thereafter also he had the agony of a long wait as to what is to happen to the appeal preferred by the State against acquittal till to-day, the date of hearing of this case.

8. Section 2(ia) and (m) of the Act defining the expression 'adulterated', which is necessary for our purpose, runs as under :-

"2. Definitions. - In this Act unless the context otherwise requires. -

(ia) 'adulterated' an article of food should be deemed to be adulterated -

(a) if the article sold by a vendor is not of the nature, substance or quality demanded by the purchaser and is to his prejudice, or is not of the nature, substance or quality which it purports or is represented to be;(m) if the quality or purity of the article falls below the prescribed standard or its co