BABU Vs. FOOD INSPECTOR TIRUVALLA MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioner has been convicted by the Sub divisional Judicial Magistrate, Chengannur in C. C. 324 of 1977 under s. 16 (1a) (i) read with S. 7 (1) and S 2 (1-a) (b) (l) (h) of the Prevention of Food adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter called the Act) read with R. 44a and appendix B item A. 07 04 of the P. F A. R. 1955 (hereinafter called the Rules)and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of rs. 2000/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. THE conviction and sentence were unsuccessfully challenged in criminal Appeal No. 109 of 1978 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, mavelikara.

(2.) PW2, the Mobile Food Inspector, attached to the Mobile vigilance Squad, Trivandrum went to the shop of the revision petitioner, by name, Royal Ice Fruit Company on 7-6-77 at 7 45 a. m , found ice candy kept in the fridge for the purpose of sale and after satisfying the formalities required by law in the presence of witnesses, purchased 60 numbers of ice candy weighing 1800 grams and dealt with the sample in accordance with law. One of the samples sent to the Public Analyst brought forth Ext. P2 report showing the sample to be adulterated. Thereupon on the direction of the Local (Health)Authority a complaint was laid against the petitioner and a copy of the report appears to have been sent to the revision petitioner. The revision petitioner pleaded not guilty before the trial court. Prosecution examined three witnesses and relied on Exts. P1 to P8. "the accused admitted the purchase of sample from him, but contended that the result of analysis might have been effected by the fact that ice candy was kept for some time in a vessel taken from the shop for the purpose of allowing the ice to melt. It is admitted that it was after ice melted into water that it was poured into three bottles. The trial court accepted the prosecution case and convicted and sentenced the revision petitioner as above and the same was confirmed by the appellate court.

(3.) EXT. P2 report of the Public Analyst shows the result of the analysis as follows: Table:#1 The Public Analyst recorded his opinion that the said sample contains artificial sweeteners sacharin and dulcin and is therefore adulterated. The use of dulcin in food is not permitted on account of the fact that it is injurious to health.