State vs Chidambaram

Maheswaran, J.—This appeal by the State is preferred against the judgment of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ariyalur, acquitting the accused respondent who was charged for an offence under Ss. 7(i) and 16(1)(a)(i) read with Ss. 2(ia)(a) and (m) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

On 29th March, 1983 at about 7 a.m. P.W. 2, who is the Food Inspector of Perambalur Town Panchayat, intercepted the accused-respondent who was carrying milk in a vessel in a cycle on the N.S.C. Bose Road, Perambalur and he purchased from him 750 ml. of mixture cow''s and buffalo''s milk for Rs. 1.50. He divided it into three equal parts and after observing all the formalities, sealed them in three clean dry bottles and sent one bottle to the Public Analyst for analysis. The report of the Public Analyst shows that the sample is deficient in solids not fat to the extent of at least 14 per cent and that the sample is also deficient in fat to the extent of at least 15 per cent. After receipt of this report, the Food Inspector laid the complaint.

The defence was one of total denial. The learned trial Magistrate acquitted the accused on two grounds, (1) that the Food Inspector who took the sample did not have the requisite training; and (2) that the report of the Analyst does not contain the date of analysis of the sample. The State challenges the judgment acquitting the accused.

The area of controversy is limited in scope. The Food Inspector, P.W. 2, has categorically admitted in his evidence that for taking sample, he did not undergo any training, but he is working as a Food Inspector from 18th February, 1966 onwards. It is contended by the learned Government Advocate appearing for the State that even though R. 8 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1985 provided qualifications for the Food Inspector, the last proviso to R. 8 does not disqualify P.W. 2 to be a Food Inspector. The proviso on which reliance is placed by the learned Government Advocate runs thus:

Provided also that nothing in this rule shall be construed to disqualify any person who is a food inspector on the commencement of the Prevention of Food Adulteration (Amendment) Rules, 1980 from continuing as such after such commencement.

Mr. T.S. Arunachalam, Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent, pointed out that this Food Inspector having not been trained even to take sample, is not competent to take sample of the food article. Even a reading of the proviso shows that a Food Inspector has to be duly qualified for being appointed as such. R. 8 prescribes the qualifications and runs thus :

A person shall not be qualified for appointment as Food Inspector unless he--

(a) is a medical officer in charge of health administration of a local area; or

(b) is a graduate in medicine and has received at least one month''s training in food inspection and sampling work approved for the purpose by the Central Government or a State Government; or

(c) is a Graduate in Science with Chemistry as one of the subjects or is a graduate in Agriculture or Public Health or Pharmacy or in Veterinary Science or a graduate in Food Technology or Dairy Technology or is a diploma holder in Food Technology or Dairy Technology from a University or Institution established in India by law or has equivalent qualifications recognised and notified by the Central Government for the purpose and has received three months'' satisfactory training in Food inspection and sampling work under a Food (Health) Authority or in an institution approved for the purpose by the Central Government:

Provided that the training in food inspection and sampling work obtained prior to the commencement of R.5 of Prevention of Food Adulteration (Fourth Amendment,) Rules 1976, in any of the laboratories under the control of--

(i) a public analyst appointed under the Act; or

(ii) a fellow of the Royal Institute of Chemistry of Great Britain (''Branch E); or

(iii) any Director, Central Food Laboratory; or the training obtained under a Food (Health) Authority, prior to the commencement of the Prevention of Food Adulteration (Amendment,) Rules, 1980, shall be considered to be equivalent for the purpose of the requisite training under these rules:

Provided further that a person who is qualified Sanitary Inspector having experience as such for a minimum period of one year and has received at least three months training in whole or in parts in food inspection and sampling work, may be eligible for appointment as food inspector, upto the period ending on the 31st March, 1985 and may continue as such if so appointed even though he does not fulfil the qualifications laid down in Cls.(a) to (i);

Provided also that nothing in this rule shall be construed to disqualify any person who is a food inspector on the commencement of these Prevention of Food Adulteration (Amendment) Rules, 1980 from continuing as such after such commencement.

It is clear from the evidence of P.W. 2 that he does not satisfy any of the conditions laid down in R.8 and it is also conceded by the learned Government Advocate. But what the Government Advocate would say is that the Food Inspector shall not be disqualified as he was a Food Inspector on the date of commencement of the Prevention of Food Adulteration (Amendment) Rules, 1980. There is evidence that he was appointed on 18.2.1586. Now R.8 goes to the root of the competency of the Food Inspector. In this case, there is no evidence what the qualification of the Food Inspector, P.W. 2 is. He has also not filed the order of appointment to find out whether even at the time of appointment, he was qualified. It is no doubt true that nothing in R.8 should be construed to disqualify him from continuing as Food Inspector after the commencement of the Rules 1980. But then R.8 having provided qualifications for Food Inspector, the Food Inspector, in my view, should prove that on the date of appointment he was duly qualified and duly appointed. The first proviso to R.8 splits of training in food inspection and sampling work, in laboratories under the control of Public Analyst appointed under the Act, etc. It is admitted by P.W. 2, Food Inspector, that he did not undergo any training in any laboratory under the direct control of a Public Analyst. In the face of this admission of P.W. 2, the Food Inspector, that he did not have any training to take samples, it would be wrong to hold that the Food Inspector is qualified to take samples. At any rate, in my view, it will cause great prejudice to the accused, if a Food Inspector, who did not have any training to take samples, takes samples of the food article. It also appears to me that it would be dangerous to convict the accused on the basis of report sent by the Analyst in respect of a food sample taken by a person who had admittedly no training to take the sample of food articles. Sitting in appeal against acquittal, even if two views are possible on the interpretation of the last proviso, the judgment acquitting the accused should not be lightly disturbed. On that view, I do not propose to go into the question whether the Analyst''s report should contain the date of analysis. The appeal fails and is dismissed.