State by Public Prosecutor vs Palani

M. Karpagavinayagam, J.—This is an appeal preferred by the State, on behalf of Food Inspector, Natham Town Panchayat, against the Judgment in S.T.C. No. 773 of 1985, on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate No.2, Madurai, acquitting the respondent/accused of the charges under Sections 7(1), 16(l)(a)(l) read with S. 2(la) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

The only ground that has been given by the Court for acquitting the respondent was that the turmeric powder which had been taken as sample in this case was not intended for human consumption, and therefore, no offence has been made out against the respondent/accused. The said view expressed in the Judgment impugned herein is quite wrong in view of the following decisions rendered by this Court as well as the Apex Court.

In State by Food Inspector v. Balakrishnan (1992(1) PFAC 304), Padmini Jesudurai, J. of this Court has held as follows:-

The final ground for acquittal that the prosecution had not proved that the turmeric powder was meant for human consumption is also unsustainable in law. The sample had been taken from a grocery shop where edible articles are kept. The Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. R. Krishnamurthy 1980 (1) FAC 7, has held that articles of food generally or commonly used for human consumption, should be taken to have been kept and intended for human consumption. It is not the case of the respondent that the packet of turmeric powder contained any indication that it was not meant for human consumption. While so, the interference is that the turmeric powder was intended for human consumption.

In the decision of the Supreme Court, stated supra (1980 (1) FAC 7), it was further held that "according to the definition of "food" which we have extracted above, for the purpose of the Act, any article used as food or drink for human consumption and any article which ordinarily enters into or is used in the consumption or preparation of human food is "food". It is not necessary that it is intended for human consumption or for preparation of human food. It is also irrelevant that it is described or exhibited as intended for some other use."

Following the principles enunciated in the above referred to the decisions, I am of the view, that the acquittal of the respondent/accused is not sustainable in law, and therefore, the same is liable to the set aside. However, taking into consideration the long elapse of 12 years period, as the offence has been detected on 30.11.1984, I do not propose to impose any punishment on the respondent/accused.

Except pointing out the illegality committed by the Court below in acquitting the accused, the respondent/accused is not sentenced in any manner, in the appeal in view of the long elapse of time. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.