Khaja Mohideen vs The State

Maheswaran, J.—The revision petitioner has been convicted of an offence punishable under S. 16(1)(a)(ii) read with S. 7(i) and S. 2(ia)(e)

and (m) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and R. 44(b) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules and was sentenced to rigorous

imprisonment for three months and to a fine of Rs. 500/- by the Judicial First Class Magistrate. Tirunelveli, and in appeal the Additional Sessions

Judge, Tirunelveli, confirmed the conviction and sentence.

The facts are :- P.W. 1, Food Inspector attached to Nanguneri town Panchayat, visited the grocery shop of the revision petitioner on 16-8-

1979 at about 11 a.m. and purchased 810 grams of coconut oil for Rs. 9-72 p. He served Ex. P-1, Form VI, notice on the revision petitioner who

acknowledged it. Ex. P-1 was attested by one Jamanani who is examined as D.W. 1 in the case. P.W. 1 divided the coconut oil so purchased into

three equal parts and sealed them in three clean dry bottles and sent one such bottle to the Local (Health) Authority and another to the Public

Analyst. Ex. P-3 is the report of the Public Analyst which show that the sample contained 80 per cent of coconut oil and 20 per cent of castor oil.

After obtaining sanction, the Food Inspector filed the complaint into court on 8-10-1979.

The defence was that there was no sale at all to the Food Inspector. This defence was disbelieved by the courts below and the revision

petitioner was convicted and sentenced as stated above. That conviction and sentence are challenged by the revision petitioner.

A perusal of the evidence of the Food Inspector and the records in this case clearly show that the sample was taken on 16-8-1979 by the Food

Inspector for analysis. The evidence of P.W. 1 and Ex. P-1 very clearly shows that a sample of 810 grams of coconut oil was taken from the shop

of the revision petitioner. Ex. P-2 shows that P.W. 1 has paid a sum of Rs. 9.75 for 810 grams of coconut oil taken as sample from the shop of the

revision petitioner for analysis. But the revision petitioner denied any such sale and examined D.W. 1, the attestor to Ex. P-1 and Ex. P-2, to show

that there was no such sale. According to D.W. 1, the attestor, his signature in Ex. P-1 and P-2 were taken at the office of the Health Inspector.

He admits in cross-examination that he used to purchase grocery articles from the shop of the revision petitioner. This revision. I cannot say that

there is any flaw in the appreciation of evidence by the courts below.

A faint attempt was made to show that R. 14 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules has not been followed. But the evidence of P.W. 1

clearly shows that the Food Inspector observed all the formalities in regard to the sealing, fastening and despatching the samples, P.W. 1 has

categorically stated that he served Ex. P-1, that he sealed the coconut oil purchased in three clean dry bottles and closed it tightly with a cork and

properly labelled it and has fastened the top tightly and has also fastened it with a twine and then sealed it. Both the courts have clearly found that

the Food Inspector has followed the rules and that the contention that the Food Inspector has not followed R. 14 is not correct. I do not see

anything wrong with these findings. The evidence of P.W. 1 as earlier pointed out, very clearly shows that he has followed all the rules.

One of the contentions which has not been taken in the courts below and even in the memorandum of grounds of revision is now taken by Mr. I.

Subramaniam and that is the Food Inspector has not indicated in his evidence as to who the Local (Health) Authority prescribed by the Central

Government or State Government is and therefore the prosecution is not maintainable. He placed reliance on a judgment of this court in Cr. Ap.

850 of 1977 (State v. Panchanadham) (not reported) (since reported in 1982 Cri LJ 111. Suryamurthy J. has observed that the offence in that

case is said to have been committed within the limits of Thiruvayaru Panchayat and that there is no evidence as to who the local authority

prescribed by the Central Government or State Government, that the Food Inspector who has not claimed to be such Local (Health) Authority,

has no right to send a copy of the report of the result of the analysis on behalf of the Local (Health) Authority and that the prosecution therefore is

not maintainable. With respect to the learned Judge, I find it difficult to agree with him that the prosecution on that account is not maintainable. It is

seen from the records in this case that notice under S. 13(2) was singed by the Local (Health) Authority and Medical Officer, Government Primary

Health Centre, Muninjipatti. S. 13(2) nowhere says that the Food Inspector should indicate in his evidence as to who the Local (Health) Authority

prescribed by the Central Government or State Government is. All that Section 13(2) requires is that no receipt of the report of the Analyst to the

effect that the article of food is adulterated, the Local (Health) Authority, after institution of the prosecution against the person from whom the

sample of food was taken, should forward a copy of the report of the Analyst to such person. In this case, notice under S. 13(2) was served on

the revision petitioner after filing of the complaint, by the Food Inspector in person R. 9-A reads that the Local (Health) Authority, immediately

after the institution of the prosecution forward a copy of the report of the result of the analysis in Form III delivered to him under sub-rule (3) of R.

7, by registered post or by hand, as may be appropriate, to the person from whom the sample of the article was taken by the Food Inspector.

What was done in this case is that he served the report of the Analyst by hand. Under these circumstances, I am unable to agree with the

observation of Suryamurthy J. that the Food Inspector has no right to send a copy of the report of the Analyst on behalf of the Local (Health)

Authority and therefore the prosecution is not maintainable.

There is no other contest in this revision. The report of the Analyst shows that the sample taken by the Food Inspector consists of mixture of 80

per cent of coconut oil and 20 per cent of castor oil. The conviction therefore is correct and the sentence is also not excessive. The conviction and

sentence are confirmed and the revision is dismissed.

Revision dismissed.