State by Public Prosecutor vs Kasirajan and Another

Singaravelu, J.—This is an appeal by the State against the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vellore, in C.C. No. 83 of 1978 acquitting the

accused (respondents herein of an offence under S. 7(1) and 16(l)(a) read with S. 1(1a), 2 (a) and (f) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

The prosecution case was that the first accused, owner of an oil-shop and the second accused, the salesman, sold 825 grams of gingelly oil to

the Food Inspector, (P.W. I), of Dharapadavedu Panchayat on 24th February, 1978 at 11:30 a.m. and on analysis it was found that the sample

was unfit for human consumption and the free fatty acids content was in excess of the permissible quantity to the extent of 50 percent. The first

respondent, owner of the oil shop, contended that he is only an accountant and that the shop belongs to the accused respondent. He has further

stated that the business alone stands in his name benami. The second respondent, stated that he is not doing any business in gingelly oil. No witness

was examined on their side. The learned Magistrate held rightly that the first respondent herein is the proprietor of the oil shop and that the second

respondent is the sales man in the shop. But then, the trial Court held that P.W. 2 did not support the case of the prosecution and that the

interested testimony of the Food Inspector alone cannot be accepted and acted upon, and therefore, gave the benefit of doubt to the accused and

acquitted them.

The approach of the lower Court is wrong and it is a wrong proposition of law (sic) to say that it is COMITTED practice that the (sic)

witnesses are the local witnesses who never support the prosecution and they are invariably gained over. The evidence of the Food Inspector can

be acted upon, especially when supported by the documentary evidence, Exs. PI to P3. It is wrong to think that any corroboration of P. W.1''s

testimony is necessary by independent witnesses.

The trial Court then held that there is violation of R. 18 of the Food Adulteration Rules and that P.W. I has not stated that he sent the packet to

the analyst with a specimen impression of it separately by post. The trial Court overlooked the fact that the report of the Public Analyst shows that

the seal affixed on the container of the sample tallied with the specimen impression of the seal separately sent by the Food Inspector, and also the

further fact that the sample was in a fit condition for analysis. Form No. VII was forwarded to the Food Inspector and therefore, there is sufficient

compliance of R. 18. Here again, the learned Magistrate committed an error.

Lastly, it was contended on behalf of the accused that when the gingelly oil when exposed to sun or atmospheric conditions, the fatty contents

are likely to increase and this flimsy argument found favour with the lower Court. The place where the food article was sold was the oil shop and it

is the duty of the vendor to keep it in proper condition when he offers it for sale it is idle to contend that he had kept the oil exposed to sunlight and

air and that it got deteriorated. There is no warrant for this inference and it is wholly imaginary. The result is the prosecution has proved the offence

beyond reasonable, doubt and therefore, the order of acquittal is set aside and both the accused are found guilty of the offence charged and they

are convicted.

With reference to the question of sentence, the article of food is gingelly oil which is used by the public in every day life. The report of the

Analyst is that it was unfit for human consumption and the free fatty acids were in excess of the maximum limit allowable to the extent of SO per

cent which is very high. But then, the offense took ''place in February, 1978, nearly 4 1/2 years ago. It is stated that the respondents are first

offenders. In these circumstances, I think that it is not necessary to impose a sentence of imprisonment on the accused and a sentence of fine will

meet the ends of justice. Therefore, the accused (respondents) are sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 250 (rupees) two hundred and fifty only) each in

default to suffer simple imprisonment for eight weeks. Time for payment of fine, two weeks from the date of receipt of the order in the lower

Court. The appeal is allowed on these terms.