1 Complainant is the appellant. Appeal is by special leave against the order of acquittal in a Food Adulteration Case. Complainant is the Food Inspector, Tellicherry. Complaint was filed against the respondent, a grocery dealer in Tellicherry Municipal Town, for having sold edible common sault on 28-9-1979 which was found by Ext. PI3 report of the Public Analyst to be adulterated. The Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tellicherry who tried the case as S T. 167 of 1979 found the respondent not guilty and acquitted him.

2According to the standards prescribed by the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, the standards for edible common sault relevant for our purpose are (!) moisture contents should not exceed 6 per cent and (2) sodium chloride contents should not be below 96 per cent. Ext. PI3 showed that moisture was 12.4 per cent and sodium chloride contents was only 85.25 per cent.

3The findings which resulted in the acquittal are:
(1) "Rule 7(3) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules was not sufficiently complied with."
(2) "The mahzar prepared in printed form without the necessary details being written in hand cannot be accepted for corroboration of the evidence of the complaina