Testimony of Food Inspector must be satisfactory.

This is an appeal by the State against the acquittal of the respondent by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate of Madurai.

2. A complaint was laid against the respondent in C.C. No.3 of 1977 on the 61e of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai by the Food Inspector on the allegation that the accused Rengasamy Naidu, who is the respondent herein, had in his possession cow’s milk for the purpose of sale, offered it for sale and also sold the same in front of door No. 5, Tiruparankundram Road, Madurai at 4.30 p.m. on 11th September, 1976 to Thiru S. Muthuswamy, Food Inspector, Madurai, Corporation, Madurai, that the cow’s milk, on analysis by the Public Analyst for Madurai Corporation was found to contain 4.5% of solide-not-fat as against 8.5% of solid-not-fat prescribed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules and hence deficient in solide-not-fat to the extent of at least 47% and was therefore adulterated and that thereby the accused had committed an offence under section 2 (ia) (a) and (m), 7 (i) 16 (1A) and 16(1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (Act XXXVII of 1954) (hereinafter referred to the Act) read with Clause A. 11.01.11 in Appendix B to Rule 5 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules).

3. The case of the prosecution has been spoken to by P.W. 1 the Food Inspector. On 9th November, 1976 at 4.30 p.m. when P.W. 1 and his maistry were proceeding on Tirupparankund-ram Road for the purpose of taking samples of food, P.W.1 saw the accused in front of door No.5 of that road, carrying an aluminium vessel containing 4 litres of milk. On interrogation he said that he was taking the milk for supply to the residents of Kakka Tope. P.W.1 purchased from him in the presence of one Arunachalam 600 ml of milk for Re. 1 and obtained the receipt, Exhibit P.1 from him and served a notice in Form VI. Exhibit P.2 is a copy of the notice served on the accused.

4. Thereafter, P.W.1, divided the milk into three equal parts and poured each part into three separate bottles which were empty, dry and clean and added 18 drops of formalin to each of the bottles, corked them, tied a twine to them and affixed label No. 19376 on each of them after obtaining the signature of the accused therein. Thereafter, he again wrapped each of the bottles with a thick paper and tied them each with strings and obtained the signature of the accused on the three separate labels and affixed the labels and outer cover to each of the bottles. He then recorded the statement of the accused which has been exhibited as Exhibit P-3. The accused signed in Exhibit P-3. He prepared the mahazar Exhibit P-4 in which also the accused signed.

5. The accused then went to Kakka Tope accompanied by P.W.1 and sold the emain-ing milk to one Shenbagam. Shenbagam who purchased 500 ml. of the same milk gave the statement, Exhibit P-5 which was attested by P.W.1. Then P.W.1 sent the report Exhibit P-6 to the office. He sent one bottle to the Public Analyst and sent the sample seal separately by post on the next day. The other two bottles were handed ever to the Health Officer. On 27th November, 1976 Exhibit P-8 was received from the Public Analyst reporting that the bottle sent to him for examination was broken and therefore the other bottle was sent by the Health Officer with the original of Exhibit P-9.

6. Subsequently, Exhibit P-10 was received from the Public Analyst reporting that on analysis the fat content was found to be 5.2% and solide-not-fat 4.5% and that clause A. 11.01.11 in Appendix B to the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 required that cow’s milk shall contain not less than 8.5% solids-not-fat. Therefore, the Public analyst was of the opinion that the sample is deficient in solids-not-fat to the extent of atleast 47%. Hence it follows that the milk sold by the accused was adulterated.

7. The complaint was laid on 28th December, 1976. Thereafter, on 7th January, 1977 the Health Offic