Tharayil Saidalavi vs Food Inspector

A. Hariprasad, J.—Revision petitioner was prosecuted before the learned Magistrate for offences under Sections 7(i) r/w Section 2(ia)(m) punishable under Section 16(1)a of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (in short ''the P.F.A. Act''). The court below examined five witnesses and marked seventeen documents on the side of the prosecution. There was no defence evidence.

After appreciating the evidence, the court below found that the revision petitioner was guilty of offences punishable under Sections 7(i) r/w 2(ia)(m) punishable under Section 16(1)a of P.F.A. Act and convicted thereunder.

The revision petitioner approached learned Sessions Judge with a criminal appeal. After considering the evidence in detail, the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by that, the revision petitioner has come up before this Court.

Prosecution case in short is that on 02-05-1989 at about 11.30 a.m., the Food Inspector purchased six packets of chilly powder, each weighing 100 grams from the shop of the revision petitioner. The sample parts were sent to the Public Analyst, who reported that the sample did not conform to the prescribed standard. On the basis of that, the prosecution was launched against the revision petitioner. The revision petitioner invoked Section 13(2) of the Act and one sample part was forwarded to Central Food Laboratory (CFL) for examination. Ext. P17 is the report submitted by the Director of Central Food Laboratory. It also confirmed that the sample sent for analysis was adulterated.

Main contention raised by the revision petitioner is that he purchased the food article from a licensed manufacturer. Then, he sold the same in the same state as he purchased and therefore he should not be deemed to have committed the offence of selling adulterated or misbranded food articles. It is also contended that the courts below should have found that the food articles seized by PW 1 from the shop of the revision petitioner was not meant for sale and hence no offence under the P.F.A. Act was made out. I have carefully perused the contentions raised by the revision petitioner. What is to be decided in a criminal revision is the legality, propriety or correctness of the order or sentence passed by the courts below.

PW 1 is the Food Inspector. Ext. P2 is the copy of Form VI notice issued to the revision petitioner. Ext. P2(a) is the acknowledgement signed by the revision petitioner for receipt of the said form. Ext. P3 is the bill issued by the revision petitioner. Ext. P4 is the mahazar, as per which, PW 1 purchased sample parts. Ext. P4 is attested by PW''s 3 and 5. There is no dispute regarding the purchase of article by PW 1 from the revision petitioner. Prime contention raised by the revision petitioner is that the packets of chilly powder contained labels showing the address of the manufacturer. PW 1 did not conduct any enquiry and the manufacturer was not impleaded . It is therefore contended by the revision petitioner that a valuable right under Section 19(2) of the P.F.A. Act had been lost. Reliance is also placed on some decisions of this Court to reinforce his contention. Court below rightly found from Ext. P4 and the evidence of PW 1, that it is revealed that the chilly powder was in sealed polythene packets of 100 grams each. The label show the name ''Premier Chilly Powder''. The address of the manufacturer was also mentioned therein. PW 1 deposed that though he had enquired about the manufacturer in the given address, it was revealed that there was no such manufacturer. That apart, the court below rightly observed that the vendor was not entitled to acquittal merely for the reason that the manufacturer was not impleaded. At the time of evidence, the revision petitioner did not produce any bill, invoice or other document on the basis of which, he could have claimed protection under Section 19(2) of the P.F.A. Act. On that basis, the court below rightly rejected the contention of the revision petitioner. On going through the evidence and the impugned judgment, I am of the view that there is no illegality or irregularity in convicting or sentencing the revision petitioner.

In the result, the revision petition is dismissed as it is devoid of any merit.

All pending interlocutory applications will stand dismissed.