Agreeing with the findings of the District Magistrate that the sugar in the tea stall of the accused was number kept for sale as such but for being utilised in the preparation of tea which was being sold to the customers, the High Court finally held that the purchase by the Food Inspector of sugar from the respondents cannot be companysidered to be a purchase under the Act so as to make them liable of the offence with which they were charged.
1 and 2 respectively.
One portion of the sample was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis.
They were accused Nos.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated June 26, 1968 of the Kerala High Court in Criminal Appeal No.
K. Mehta, K. L. Mehta, and K. R. Nagaraja, for the respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Vaidialingam, J. This appeal, by special leave, by the Food Inspector, Calicut Corporation, is directed against the judgment and order dated June 26, 1968 of the Kerala High Court in 46 I S.C. India/7i Criminal Appeal No.
P. 3 dated December 28, 1965 has certified that the sample companytained artificial sweetner saccharin equivalent to about seven percent of cane sugar and therefore it was adulterated.
Both the accused pleaded number guilty and even denied having sold sugar to the Food Inspector.
The defence was that the, accused was number a dealer in ghee as such and that, the said article was stored in the Hotel for the purpose of being served along with the meals to the customers or for using it in the preparation of other articles of food.
The accused was acquitted on the ground that in order to companystitute an offence, the A.I.R. 1962 All.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
of sugar for a price of 78 paise to the Food Inspector from the tea stall and which sugar was found to be adulterated by the Public Analyst.
281 of 1968.
Both the accused were charged of an offence under s. 16 1 a i of the Act for having sold on November 17, 1965 600 gm.
37 of 1954 hereinafter to be referred to as the Act .
A.I.R. 1960 Andhra Pradesh 366.
113 of 1968.
Sreedharan Nambiar, for the appellant.
113 of 1968 companyfirming the acquittal of the respondents of an offence under S. 16 1 a i of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 Act No.
4/777 Customs Road, Calicut.
The first respondent is the Manager and the second respondent, his wife, are the owner and licencee of a tea stallin the premises No.
The quantity of sugar so purchased was sampled as per the rules in the presence of the first accused and the witnesses.
On November 17, 1965 at about 9.45 A.M., the Food Inspector, Calicut Corporation, purchased from the first respondent 600 grams of sugar for a price of 78 paise ,for analysis from the stock of sugar kept in the premises to be used in the preparation of tea sold to customers in the said tea stall run by the second respondent under the licence issued by the Corporation.
The Analyst in his report Ex.
