N SUKUMARAN NAIR Vs. FOOD INSPECTOR MAVELIKARA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A sample of ice cream purchased by the Food Inspector from the appellant was reported by the Public Analyst to be adulterated because of reduction of milk-fat and total solids in the product. Yet, the trial court acquitted the appellant on the ground that Rule 18 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 was not complied with inasmuch as the Food Inspector in support of his word did not adduce in evidence the postal receipt to establish that he had sent not only the sample of ice cream properly sealed and fastened but the specimen impression of the seal too separately, so that the Public Analyst could certify that the seal fixed on the container and theouter cover of the sample tallied with the specimen impression of the seal separately sent by the Food Inspector to him. It was taken that unless the conditions aforementioned were satisfied, the sample was not in a fit condition for analysis. The High court reversed the decision of the trial court taking the view that when the report of the Public Analyst specified that the seal fixed on the container and the outer cover of the sample tallied with the specimen impression of the seal separately sent by the Food Inspector, making the sample in a condition fit for analysis, that was the end of the matter and that the statement of the Food Inspector was not deficient when the postal receipt was not adduced in evidence. The acquittal was thus upset and the appellant was convicted for the offence charged and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000. 00 in default of payment of which further simple imprisonment for two months.

(2.) It has vehemently been urged by Mr. V. A. Bobde, learned Senior Counsel that compliance of Rule 18 was mandatory and since there was an infraction in the instant case, the view of the trial court deserves to prevail. We fail to see how there is violation of the said Rule. The Food Inspector as Public Witness 1 was categoric that he had sent the specimen impression of the seal separately to the Public Analyst under sealed cover. It is true that he did not adduce in evidence the postal receipt vide which the specimen impression of the seal was sent separately. The Food Inspector could be dubbed wrong if his statement had been challenged in cross-examination. As is obvious, the Food Inspector deposed to the observance of the requirement of Rule 18 but, at best, can be said not to have introduced corroborative evidence to his word. But, if the word of the Food Inspector is not challenged in cross examination and is otherwise found corroborated from the report of the Public Analyst wherein the necessary recitals, even though in printed form, are available, compliance of Rule 18 becomes obvious. Such report by the Public Analyst is ex facie evidence. There are methods to challenge the same which were not resorted to. We are, thus, of the view that the High court was justified in upsetting the order of acquittal on the aforesaid ground.

(3.) The offence took place in the year 1984. The appellant has been awarded six months' simple imprisonment and has also been ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000. 00 Under clause (d) of Section 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, "the appropriate government" is empowered to commute the sentence of simple imprisonment for fine. We think that this would be an appropriate case for commutation of sentence where almost a decade has gone by. We, therefore, direct the appellant to deposit in the trial court a sum of Rs. 6,000. 00 as fine in commutation of the sentence of six months' simple imprisonment within a period of six weeks from today and intimate to the appropriate government that such fine has been deposited. On deposit of such fine, the State government may formalise the matter by passing appropriate orders under clause (d) of Section 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.