M RAJAN Vs. FOOD INSPECTOR PALGHAT MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused in a case taken to file on the complaint of the Food Inspector, Palghat Municipality charging the accused with an offence punishable under S.16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 is the revision petitioner and he challenges the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palghat convicting him and sentencing him to Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 months, as confirmed in appeal by the Court of Sessions, Palghat The case against the petitioner is that on 25-2-1978 at about 9.15 a. m. the petitioner sold 750 Ml of cow's milk which on analysis was found to be adulterated Ext. P6 is the report of the Public Analyst. At the instance of the petitioner the sample was sent to the Central Food Laboratory for analysis and Ext. P13 is the report of the Director of Central Food Laboratory. This report shows that the sample does not conform to the standard prescribed for cow's milk under the statute. The sample was found to contain milk fat content above the minimum prescribed for cow's milk and milk solids non fat was found deficient. The case was tried summarily. The Chief Judicial Magistrate found that the sampling was properly done, that R.16(c) concerning the manner of packing and sealing bad been duly complied with, that the milk was found to be sub-standard which in turn showed that it was adulterated and that therefore an offence punishable under S.16(1)(a)(i) of the Act had been committed. It was found that in the circumstances the minimum sentence provided under the proviso would meet the ends of justice and that was accordingly imposed. That was confirmed in appeal.

(2.) Before me 3 points are raised by counsel for the revision petitioner. These are: (1) There is non compliance with S.10(7) of the Act in as much as there is no independent evidence to corroborate the testimony of the Food Inspector. (2) Though the manner of packing and sealing the samples may not be open to attack R.17 which prescribes the manner of despatching the containers of samples is not shown to have been complied with so much so that it must be taken to work prejudice to the accused and (3) Milk sold being an item of primary food the accused must get an opportunity to show that the fall in standard was solely due to natural causes and beyond the control of human agency. I will now deal with these contentions.

(3.) S.10(7) does not deal with corroboration of the evidence of Food Inspector, but with the obligation of the Food Inspector to call one or more persons to be present at the time action is taken under clause (a) of sub-s.(1), sub-s.(2), sub-s.(4) or sub-s.(6) of S.10 of the Act and the obligation to take the signatures of such persons. This has no bearing on the evidentiary value of the testimony of a Food Inspector when it is uncorroborated. That may have to be adjudged independently and not with reference to S 10(7). Even in a case where a Food Inspector has called independent witnesses to attest to his acts and has taken their signatures it may be that the benefit of their evidence is not available and the court is left with only the evidence of the Food Inspector. It will be a question of fact in each case whether, in the circumstance of that case, the court should act upon the sole testimony of the Food Inspector. This is what this court said in the decision in Raveendran v. Food Inspector ( 1977 KLT 155 ). We are not concerned here with such a situation. What is urged is that S.10(7) is violated. That would be the case only if the Food Inspector had failed to call witnesses to attest his act under S.10(7) of the Act. That is not the case here. The mahazar relating to sampling is seen duly attested by witnesses and they are examined in the case as Pw. 2 and Pw. 3. Pw. 2 is an independent witness not shown to have any interest in the prosecution and Pw. 3 is the Health Officer of the Municipality. In the circumstances there can be no complaint of non compliance with S.10(7) of the Act.