C. RAMESAN Vs. P.P. GOPINATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioner was prosecuted by the first respondent Food Inspector,Changanacherry Circle in CC.No.36/1991 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate,Kottayam,with an allegation that on 31.1.1991,when the first respondent inspected the bakery run by the revision petitioner in Building No.II/196 at Kumaramcode in Puthuppally Panchayat,the revision petitioner was not possessing a licence under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and hence committed offence under Section 7(iii)of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act,1954 read with rule 50(i)of the P.F.A.Rules framed thereunder.

(2.) AFTER examining the first respondent as Pw1 under Sec.244 Crl.P.C.and marking documents,a charge was framed against the revision petitioner to which he pleaded not guilty when it was read over and explained under Sec.246 Crl.P.C.Hence he was sent for trial.On the side of the prosecution,Pws.1 to 6 were examined and Exts.P1 to P10 were marked.During the course of cross examination of Pws.1 and 4,Exts.D1 to D3 were marked.Ext.D1 is a licence obtained in Form No.V as contemplated under the PFA Rules for stock and sale of food articles.Ext.D2 is the copy of application for issue of licence in Form No.II under the PFA Rules for manufacture of food articles and Ext.D3 is the licence obtained thereon issued after the inspection by the first respondent.The revision petitioner took up a defence that he had obtained due licence.The learned Magistrate on appraisal of the evidence arrived a finding that Ext.D1 licence in Form No.V produced by the revision petitioner in defence is for stock and sale of food articles.It was further found that Ext.D3 licence in Form No.II for the manufacture of food articles was applied on 31.3.1991 as evidenced by Ext.D2 and was obtained on the very same day.In the above circumstance,the learned Magistrate found that as on the date of inspection by the first respondent,the revision petitioner had no licence in Form No.II for the manufacture of food articles.On such conclusion,he was found guilty for the offences alleged,convicted thereunder and sentenced to simple imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs.1,000/ - with a default clause for simple imprisonment for ten days.Though he preferred Crl.Appeal No.86/1996 before the Sessions Judge,Kottayam he was not successful.Assailing the legality,correctness and propriety of the above conviction and sentence as confirmed in appeal,this revision petition was filed.