JUDGMENT
S.C. Pratap, J.
1. This appeal by the State is directed against the order of acquittal dated 16th May ,1977 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nanded, in Criminal Case No. 369 of 1976.
2. The proceedings arise out of the prosecution under the provisions of the preventions of Food Adulteration Act. The article of food in this case is ‘Tur Tukdi’. The report of the Public Analyst (Exh. 36) indicated that it contained 29.8 per cent of damaged grans due to moisture and hence did not conforms to the standards laid down under the Rules under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. In a prosecution launched against the accused person, the learned Magistrate, after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, came to the conclusion on the material point to the effect that the article Tur Tukdi purchased by the Food Inspector was not meant for human consumption at all and secondly that the said article was actually meant for cattle feed. It was further found by the learned Magistrate that the sample was taken from a processing factory and not from any shop or any premises where goods or articles were being sold. In the result, an order of acquittal was rendered in favour of the accused persons.
3. In this appeal against the said acquittal, I have heard Mr. S.B. Patil ,the learned Public Prosecutor for the State. The accused are represented by Mr. R.M. Agarwal, the learned Counsel. After hearing the respective Advocate, it is not possible to take a different view of the matter and of the evidence on record than the one taken by the learned Magistrate. Here is a case where there are fatal infirmities in the prosecution case. Even taking the basic events as true, viz. the visit of the Food Inspector to the factory in question, the sale of Tur Tukdi by one of the accused to the said Food Inspector, the analysis thereof by the Public Analyst and the result of the said analysis as correct—All these do not bring home the guilt to the accused persons.
4. The important question to be decided in a case of this nature was whether the article in question was at all meant for human consumption. The evidence on record clearly indicates that it was not so. Even the Food Inspector’s admissions on record show that this was a processing factory and raw materials were lying at different places. Even husk was seen lying in a part of the premises. The evidence on record further indicates that the Tur Tukdi was sold as Tur Tukdi to the Food Inspector. Even the report of the Public Analyst shows that the sample has been described by the Public Analyst also as Tur Tukdi. However, while analysing the said sample the Public Analyst has applied the standard laid down under A-18-06 of Appendix ‘B’ of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. The standard laid down in the said item is actually meant for foodgrains meant for human consumption. In this case, the article sold to the Food Inspector in the processing factory of the accused persons was not meant for human consumption at all. It was, therefore, not proper to apply the aforesaid standard to the analysis of Tur Tukdi in the present case. In these circumstances, even taking the result of the analysis as not conforming to the standard mentioned above, it is a clear case of applying a wrong standard to the article in question. This by itself would suffice to confirm the above order of acquittal rendered in favour of the accused persons by the learned Magistrate.
5. That apart, there is also no evidence on the record to establish that the aforesaid Tur Tukdi was sold by the accused for human consumption. Though the accused persons had an altogether different foodgrain shop in the same city, though in a different locality, no attempt has been made by the prosecution to show that such or similar Tur Tukdi was stored in the said shop for sale for human consumption. On this count also, it is difficult to come to a conclusion in favour of the prosecution that the Tur Tukdi in question found in the processing factory of the accused was meant for human consumption.
6. That the factory in question was a processing factory is amply established even by the admissions given by the Food Inspector. The said finding of the learned Magistrate also, to an extent, receives corroboration from the personal inspection of the said factory carried out by the learned Magistrate himself. There is also an admission on record of the Food Inspector that though he was in the factory for over 1 1/2 hours, he did not find a single customer coming to the factory for the purpose of purchasing any article from the said processing factory. There is also no other evidence to show that at any other time any customer has ever gone to the processing factory of the accused for purchase of any article. The conclusion, therefore, that this is a processing factory and not a place meant for sale of any article is irresistible.
7. The cumulative effect of all this is that the order of acquittal rendered in favour of the accused by the learned Magistrate is clearly justified. Interference with the said acquittal in the present appeal is not possible. This appeal, therefore, fails and the same is dismissed.
8. Bail bonds shall stand cancelled.