State by Public Prosecutor vs Rangaswami and Another

Maheswaran, J.—The State has preferred this appeal against the judgment of the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tiruppur, acquitting the

respondents-accused who were charged for offences under SS. 16(1)(a)(i) read with S. 7(i) and 2(i-a)(m) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration

Act.

On 29th June, 1977, P.W.I, Food Inspector of Karamadai Panchayat Union purchased at about 4-10 p.m. (wrongly stated as 4-10 a.m. in the

judgment) 750 grams of broken rice from A-2 who was doing business and divided the rice into three equal parts and sealed them in three

packets, labeled them and sent one such packet to the Public Analyst and the remaining two to the local (Health) authority. The report of the

Analyst. Ex. P.8, showed that the sample contained damaged grains in excess, to an extent of 64 per cent. The Food Inspector later laid the

complaint against Al, the owner and A2 from whom he has purchased the broken rice.

The defence was that the sample was sold as ''poultry feed'', and was not intended for human consumption. The trial Magistrate found that

notice under S. 13(2) of the Act served by the Food was Inspector and not by the Local (Health) Authority as contemplated under S. 13(2) and

that the notice was not served on A2, from whom the sample was taken but on Al, who was the owner of the shop.

The second contention that notice under S. 13(2) was served only on Al is not factually correct as I find from the records that it was served on

A2 also. Obviously, the Magistrate has overlooked the thumb impression of A2 in Ex.B9, The evidence of Food Inspector also shows that it was

served on A2,

As regards the first objection that the notice under S. 13(2) was issued by the Food Inspector and not by the Local (Health) authority, I must

point out that there is in evidence of P.W.I, the Food Inspector, that he served the notice on the direction of the Local (Health) Authority, This

statement of P.W. 1 has not been challenged in cross-examination and it should also be noted that one of the duties of the Food Inspector

enumerated under R. 9 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules is that he should ''perform such other duties as may be entrusted to him by

the health officer having jurisdiction in the local area concerned or the Food (Health) authority"". (see R. 9(i)). Therefore, it is clear that the grounds

on which the order of acquittal was pronounced are wrong.

But the learned counsel for the respondents wants to sustain the order of acquittal on another ground and that is, the mandatory provisions of S.

13(2) have not been followed. He would say that the report of the Analyst was served earlier to the filing of the complaint and the Analyst report

was not enclosed along with the notice under S. 13(2) . S. 13(2) runs thus-

On receipt of the report of the analysts under Sub-s.(l) to the effect that the article of food is adulterated, the Local (Health) Authority shall,. after

the institution of prosecution against the person from whom the sample of the article of food was taken and the person, if any, whose name,

address and other particulars have been disclosed under S. 14-A, forward, in such manner as may be prescribed, a copy of the report of the

analysis to such person or persons, as the case may be, informing such person or persons that if it is so desired, either or both of them may make

an application to the court within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of the copy of the report to get the sample of the article of food kept

by the Local (Health) Authority analysed by the Central Food Laboratory.

A perusal of Ex. P.8, shows that on the reverse of the original of the Analyst''s report, the thumb impression of A2 was obtained on 2nd August,

1977. The complaint, though dated 2nd September, 1977, was filed on 5th September, 1977 as is seen from the seal of the Court affixed on it.

Therefore it is clear that the report of the Analyst was served much earlier to the filing of the complaint. There is therefore, a clear contravention of

the provisions of S. 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. In P. K. Moorthy v. Food Inspector, Kumbakonam Municipality 1970

L.W. Cri. 139 a Division Bench of this Court (of which I was a members) was of the view that the provisions of Ss. 13 and 11 of the Prevention

of Food Adulteration Act are mandatory and non-compliance with those provisions will vitiate the entire proceedings. In this case, the proceedings

are vitiated as the Analyst''s report was served much earlier to the filing of the complaint. The order of acquittal is therefore correct and is

confirmed though not for the reasons stated by the Magistrate and the appeal preferred by the State is dismissed.