State and Madurai Corporation vs M. Subramaniam and another

Rengasamy, J.—This appeal is against the order of acquittal of the Respondents by the learned Special Judicial First Class Magistrate,

Madurai (CCIW) in C.C. No. 44/86 for the offence u/s 2(la)(a)(m), 7(1), 16(l)(a) and Rule 5 Appendix B, Section 17.03 of the Prevention of

Food Adulteration Act.

The prosecution case is that on 27.6.1985 at 11:15 A.M. the Food Inspector took the sample of Ground oil from the shop of the Respondents

in Door No. 68 Nethaji Road and the Analysis Report reveals that the sample was adulterated. The Respondents contended that they requested

another sample to be sent to the court for forwarding the same to another Analyst but the Health Officer did not send the sample within the time

prescribed and the mandatory provision of the Act was not complied with by the Food Inspector. The court below accepting the contention of the

accused/Respondents, acquitted them of the charges. Hence this appeal.

Even though in the lower court the Respondents took up the contention that independent witness is required u/s 10(7) was not examined by the

Food Inspector, now the learned Counsel for the Respondents is not pressing that point, as independent witness has been examined though he

turned hostile. However, the Respondents would contend that Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was not complied with by

the Local Authorities. The Respondents filed a petition before the learned Magistrate to send another sample in the custody of the Local Authority

to another Analyst and the court also passed orders on 29.8.1985 directing the Local Authorities to send the sample to the court for sending to the

Central Food Laboratory, Mysore for analysis. The necessary charge of Rs. 40/- also has been deposited by the Respondents/accused. Even

though the letter of the learned Magistrate dated 17.9.1985 had reached the Local Authority within one or two days the Health Officer, Local

Authority had sent the sample to the court only on 7.12.1985, that is, nearly three months after the order of the court below. u/s 13(2)(A) of the

Prevention of the Food Adulteration Act the Local Authority has to send the sample to the court within five days from the date of receipt of the

request from the court. As it is a mandatory provision the Local Health Authority was bound to comply with, but for nearly three months the

sample was not sent to the court. Therefore, the learned Magistrate was perfectly right in holding that the mandatory provision was not complied

with and the Respondents/accused shall not be convicted for this latches. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) is not able to explain

this latches on the part of the Madurai Public Health Authority. Hence the appeal deserve to be dismissed.

In the result, confirming the acquittal of the court below, the appeal is dismissed.