V K MOHAMMED Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused in C.C. No. 244/1124 on the file of the 2nd Class Magistrate of Cochin are the revision petitioners in this case. The accused who are two in number were tried for offences punishable under S.4(1) read with Rr. 27 and 28 of the Cochin Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (XIV of 1109). The prosecution case is that the 1st accused who is the owner of shop No. 140 in the Mattancheri town offered for sale in his shop adulterated ghee containing 15% of pure ghee and 85% of fat. The 2nd accused who is an employee of the 1st accused sold such ghee to PW 1 the Sanitary Inspector of Mattancherri on 28.3.1124. The complaint was filed by the Sanitary Inspector as per order of the Municipal Commissioner of Mattancherry who is the Local Food Inspector for the town. Both the accused were found guilty and the 1st accused was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 85 and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one and a half months. The 2nd accused was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50 and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Both the accused appealed from the decision before the District Magistrate of Trichur who confirmed the conviction and sentence.

(2.) The two points urged in this Revision Petition are that the condition laid down in S.17 of Act XIV of 1109 for instituting prosecution under the Act is not satisfied in this case and that the 2nd accused has not in any case committed an offence as the delivering of ghee to the Sanitary Inspector under S.13 of the Act was not a voluntary sale and hence not an offence under the Act.

(3.) As for the first point it is argued that PW 1 the Sanitary Inspector who filed the complaint in this case is not one competent to file it under S.17 of the Act. S.17 reads thus:- No prosecution under this Act shall be instituted except on the complaint of the purchaser or of the local Food Inspector or under sanction of the Government. S.3(1) of the Act provides that the local Food Inspector may delegate his powers and duties under the Act to such persons and in such manner as may be prescribed. It is argued for the prosecution that the local Food Inspector namely the Municipal Commissioner has delegated his power to file the complaint in this case to PW 1, the Sanitary Inspector. It is also contended that Pw. 1 is the purchaser of ghee. The revision petitioners case is that Pw. 1 is not a purchaser of ghee and that the authority to prefer a complaint under the Act is not one that can be delegated by the local Food Inspector to any other person.