FOOD INSPECTOR QUILON Vs. KOYAKUTTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only point that falls to be decided in these two appeals is as to the interpretation of R.22A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, which were made under the Prevention of Food adulteration Act 1954 (Central Act 37 of 1954). This question arises on account of a charge laid against the two accused persons involved in each of these appeals for the sale of adulterated arrow root powder, which is an offence punishable under S.16(1)(a)(i) of the aforesaid Act.

(2.) The Food Inspector of the Quilon Municipality visited the shop of one Raman Nair at about 11-45 a. m. on 26-3-1970 and purchased from him three packets of arrow root power which is the case involved in Crl. Appeal No. 268 of 1971. The same Food Inspector visited the shop of one Koyakutty at about 4.15 p.m. on 10-11-1969 and purchased six similar packets of arrow root powder which is the subject matter in the other appeal. Each of the packets purchased from Raman Nair and two of the six packets purchased from Koyakutty were separately closed, packed and sealed in three separate containers of which one container was sent to the Public Analyst, one handed over to each of the accused persons and the third was retained with the Food Inspector to be sent to the Court, if necessary to be transmitted for analysis by the Director of Central Food Laboratory under S.13(2) of the Act if any legal proceedings are to be taken against the accused persons. The Food Inspector issued Form VI notice, obtained a voucher and prepared a mahazar in the presence of the accused persons in each of the cases. The Public Analyst, on analysis of the sample, was of the opinion that the sample consisted wholly of tapioca starch (Manihot utiliesma) and was therefore adulterated. The report of analysis is Ext. P4 in these cases.

(3.) The learned District Magistrate took evidence in the cases and after hearing both sides, came to the conclusion that in his opinion, notwithstanding the amended R.22A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, if the Food Inspector did not mix up the contents of each of the separate packets purchased by him and then divided the whole quantity into three parts there would still be a failure to comply with the mandatory provision in S.11(b) of the Food Adulteration Act, and accordingly he held that the prosecution must fail especially because of the ruling in Bhagwandass v. The State (AIR 1962 Punj. 419).