M.M. Pareed Pillay, J.
1. The appeal is filed by the State against the judgment of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Perumbavoor in S.T. 378/78. Food Inspector attached to Perumbavoor Municipality filed complaint alleging offences under Sections 2(1)(a) and 7 read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.
2. Al was conducting a butter shop in room No. XII/220 in Perumbavoor town and A2 was the Salesman employed by Al in that shop. On 24-9-1977 at about 11.30 a.m. the complainant purchased 450 grams of butter from the stock exhibited for sale from the shop. A2 was paid the price of Rs. 9/-. Food Inspector sampled the butter as per the rules and one of the samples was sent to the public analyst. Report showed it was adulterated. The learned Magistrate found Al and A2 guilty and sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months. Accused 1 and 2 filed Crl. Appeal 18/81 before the Addl. Sessions Judge, Parur. The Learned Addl. Sessions Judge allowed the appeal and acquitted 1 and 2.
3. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondents has raised preliminary objection that the appeal itself is not maintainable as it has been filed by the State and not by the Food Inspector. Admittedly, Food Inspector is the complainant. It was he, who initiated the complaint. As the appeal was allowed reversing the conviction entered against the appellant by the trial Court, Food Inspector ought to have filed the appeal instead of the appeal being filed by the State of Kerala. Under Section 378(4), Cr. P.C. it is for the complainant to apply for special leave to appeal from the order of acquittal. As the Food Inspector is the complainant it is for him to file the appeal by getting sanction for special leave. Under Section 378(1) Cr. P.C. the State Government may direct the Public Prosecutor to appeal to the High Court from an order of acquittal. But in the case in hand, the Public Prosecutor has signed the appeal memorandum but no vakalath or memo of appearance is seen filed on behalf of the complainant. As the appeal has not been filed by the Food Inspector, the complainant, it has to be held that it is not maintainable. Preliminary objection raised by the counsel for the respondents deserves acceptance. As the appeal is found to be not maintainable, it is not necessary to consider the merits of the case raised in the appeal.
The Crl, Appeal is dismissed as not maintainable.