Applicability of the provisions of Tea Act, 1959.

The appellant is the Food Inspector of Cochin Corporation. The appeal is against the order of acquittal of the four accused in C.C. No. 10 of 1977, on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ernakulam.

2. The first accused is a company by name “Suwert and Dholakia Private Ltd.”, represented by its Managing Partner. The second accused is the Managing Partner of the company. The third accused is the Godown Keeper of the first accused company. The fourth accussed is the National Tea Distributors, Willington Island the concern, which is stated to have sold tea to the second accused as per debit notes.

3. The case of the complainant is as follows: On 27th October, 1976 at 9.30 a.m. P.W. 1, Food Inspector, visited the godown of the company situated in Willington Island. He purchased four samples from the stock of tea kept in the godown from the third accused godown keeper. Of the samples taken one was in respect of tea by name “Glen rock”, the second was from “Thankakanam, B.A.P. Tea”, and the third was from “Blended B. P. Tea”. The fourth was from “Rockmound B. P. F. Tea”, the samples were assigned the Nos. 154 to 157. After following the formalities prescribed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act the samples were sent for analysis. The samples, other than the blended tea (No. 156) were found to consist of mixtures of tea and tea-waste. They did not conform to the standard fixed for tea in the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. Exhibit P-8 series are the reports of the Public Analyst in respect of the adulterated samples and Exhibit D-1 is the report in respect of the Blended B. P. Tea. A complaint was thereafter filed alleging offences punishable under sections 2 (1-a) (m) , 7 (1) and 14-A and 17 and 16(1-A) I and II of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act XXXVII of 1954 as amended by Act XXXIV of 1976 (for short the Act) read with rule 5, Appendix A. 14 of the Prevention of Food adulteration Rules, 1955.

4. The taking of sample by P.W. 1 Food Inspector is not disputed. There is nocase that the formalities have not been complied with. The defence set up is that the first accused company is engaged in the business of exporting blended tea, the fourth accused is the purchasing agent of the first accused company and that the tea stored in the godown was meant for blending and export. The further case of the accused is that the third accused, as the godown keeper, had no authority to sell tea and that it was under threat of seizure of the whole tea that he permitted the Food Inspector to take sample. D.W. 1, an examiner in the Customs Collectorate at Cochin, D.Ws. 2 and 3, workers under the first accused, D.W. 3 the godown keeper, 3rd accused and D.W. 4 the 2nd accused were examined and Exhibits D-1 to D-8 were marked in support of the above case. Exhibit D-1 as already stated is the analyst's report in relation to the sample taken from the blended tea. Exhibit D-5 and Exhibit D-6 are blend sheets and Exhibit D-7 and Exhibit D-8 are shipping bills. P.W. 1 in his cross-examination admitted that no local sales were seen conducted by the first accused, that the third accused reported to him that the tea stored in the godown was meant for blending and export and also that he had no authority to sell. The trial Court accepted the defence set up and acquitted the accused. The order of acquittal is challenged in this appeal.

5. The appellant would contend that absence of local sales did not stand in the way of his taking sample for the purpose of analysis and that storing even for the purpose of export could come within the purview of the Act. The taking of sample being sale for the purpose of the Act, the accused would be liable for punishment if the tea. stored was found to be adulterated. The stand taken by the respondents-accused is that storing by itself or storing for the purpose of export does not amount to storing for sale which alone is made punishable under the Act. The respondents’ further an