P A JOSE Vs. FOOD INSPECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Crl. M. P. No. 1501 of 1979 is a petition under S.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to quash the order dated 23-11-1979 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Trichur in S. T. 31 of 1979. Criminal R. P. No. 492 of 1979 is a revision petition directed against the order passed by the same Magistrate on the same day in S. T. 35 of 1979. The two cases have been beard together and are being disposed of by a common order, since they involve the same question.

(2.) In both these cases the concerned Food Inspector filed complaints against two different persons for selling adulterated food articles to the Food Inspector; the articles having been sampled and sent to the Analyst, the Public Analyst's reports showed the samples to be adulterated. In both the cases the accused appeared and were represented by counsel. Several months after the samples were taken and complaints were laid, the process of forwarding of the copies of the reports of the Public Analyst with the necessary information as contemplated under S.13(2) of the P. F. A. Act 1954 (for short the Act) was not completed. The accused were evidently trying to take advantage of the situation by praying for an order of discharge. The prosecution tried to meet this situation by filing applications before the court for help of the court in serving copies of the Public Analyst's report under S.13(2) of the Act. In both instances, the cases were adjourned to enable service of the reports contemplated under S.13(2) of the Act to the accused as they were expected to appear in court on the next adjournment date. In both the cases, the court apparently accepted the contention of the Food Inspector that the accused persons were avoiding service of reports under S.13(2) of the Act. In S. T. 35/79 the learned Magistrate passed an order to the following effect: "The notices will be served on the accused when they appear the court on the next hearing date." In S. T. 31/79, the order was to the effect that accused was evading service and granting 15 days time to serve report under S.13(2) of the Act.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in the one case and the revision petitioner in the other case, urged two contentions before me, viz., that the learned Magistrate agreed with the submission made by the Food Inspectors regarding the accused persons avoiding service without hearing the accused persons and without giving them an opportunity to have their say in the matter and that the court has no jurisdiction to lend itself as a means for service of copy of report contemplated under S.13(2) of the P. F. A. Act, 1954. I am in agreement with both these submissions.