Natarajan vs State

Bellie, J.—This Criminal Revision case is directed against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Tirunelvcli, in C.A. No. 9/87

confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tirunelvcli in C.C. No. 50/86.

The revision Petitioner has been convicted for offence under Ss. 7(i) and 16(i)(a)(i) read with Ss. 2(19)(a) and (m) of the Prevention of Food

Adulteration Act. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only)

in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.

The case of the prosecution is that the Food Inspector, Tirunelvcli Municipality, purchased cow and buffalo milk mixture, took samples from it

and sent the same to the Public Analyst who found it to be in deficit of 20% of solids not fat. For this the Petitioner was prosecuted and he was

convicted and sentenced as stated above by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tirunelveli and in appeal the conviction and sentence were confirmed by

the learned Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli.

Now, in the revision filed by the Petitioner/accused, the learned Counsel appearing for him contends that as per rules, before the milk is

purchased for taking samples for sending the same to the Public Analyst, it (the milk) should have been stirred well in a clean vessel. But, in the

complaint nothing about the stirring of the milk is mentioned. Hence the sample has not been taken as per the rules and therefore the conviction is

vitiated.

It is true that in the complaint it is not mentioned that the milk was stirred. But, in the evidence of the Food Inspector (P.W.1) he has stated that

before he purchased the milk it was thoroughly stirred. Regarding this no question has been asked in the cross-examination. Therefore, that

evidence of the Food Inspector stands unchallenged. This only shows that there was indeed stirring of the milk. The non-mentioning of stirring of

the milk in the complaint is not material because no law says that it must be stated so in the complaint. Therefore, I find no merit in this connection.

It was next argued that for appointment as a Food Inspector, as per Rule 8 of the Rules framed under the Act, in the year 1985, a person, must

be possessed of certain qualification, but there is no evidence as to whether the Food Inspector concerned (P.W.1) who was appointed in 1985

had such qualification at all. But, this point has not been raised either in the trial court or in the appellate court. I do not think this argument can be

heard now in the revision.

Thus, I find no merits in the criminal revision case. Accordingly, the criminal revision case is dismissed.

However, by virtue of G.O. Ms. No. 296, dated 20.2.1993 the revision Petitioner is entitled to remission in the sentence of imprisonment. As

such he need not surrender.