BABU Vs. FOOD INSPECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above revision is directed against the judgment in Crl. A. No. 1/1992 of V Additional Sessions Judge, Ernakulam, which was filed against the judgment in S. T. No. 2366/1989 of the Judicial I Class Magistrate, N. Paravur. The petitioner is the first accused in S. T. No. 2366/1989. The first respondent Food Inspector filed a complaint against the petitioner and another for offences punishable under S. 2(ia)(m) and 7(i) read with S.16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, hereinafter referred to as "the Act". The Trial Court found the petitioner guilty of the offences charged against him and convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month more. On finding that the second accused was hot guilty, he was acquitted. On appeal by the petitioner, the appellate court confirmed the said conviction and sentence. Hence this revision.

(2.) THE complainant's case is that at about 1.50 p.m. on 28-8-1989 he saw the first accused carrying milk belonging to the 2nd accused in an aluminium Can, fitted on the carrier of a cycle. After complying with the formalities, he purchased 750 ml. of milk from the first accused and sampled it according to law. The first accused told him that he received milk from Prince Dairy, run by the 2nd accused, for sale on commission basis. After analysing a part of the sample, the Public Analyst reported that the sample is adulterated. Hence the complainant launched prosecution against the accused persons.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. P. S. Santhosh challenged the conviction and sentence on various grounds. According to him, the Courts below believed the testimony of interested witnesses and also the Food Inspector and discarded the evidence of DWs 1 and 2. It is also submitted by the revision petitioner that the milk in question was not meant for sale and hence the courts below ought to have found that the taking of sample is illegal. He has also challenged the sampling done by the Food Inspector.