R A USMANKUTTY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was the accused in C.C. No. 61 of 1977 of the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alleppey. The case against him was that he sold to the 2nd respondent, the Food Inspector, Alleppey, on 28th December, 1976 at about 10 a.m. a sample of coffee powder which on analysis of the public analyst was found to be adulterated for the reason that the sample did not conform to the standard prescribed under the statute. The Trial Court found the petitioner guilty and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for a period of six months and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000. On appeal the conviction and sentence were confirmed. Hence this revision.

(2.) The petitioner's counsel attempted to assail the judgment under revision on various grounds. A consideration of those grounds would involve appreciation of evidence and reassessment of the same. I do not think it proper to enter into regions of evidence which found favour with the courts below. In the absence of any illegality or irregularity committed by the courts below it will not be proper to interfere with the judgment under revision. The evidence has been properly considered and the court below has not committed any error in its approach to the facts and evidence.

(3.) However, the petitioner's counsel raised a new plea not taken by him before the courts below on which I feel he is entitled to succeed. Till 1st April, 1976 a Food Inspector was obliged under the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the rules to hand over one sample, which he gets after dividing the food purchased by him into three parts, to the accused. This requirement has been taken away by the new S.11 of the amending Act 34 of 1976. Under the amended section one of the parts has to be sent to the public analyst under intimation and the remaining two parts to the Local (Health) Authority. The manner of despatching containers of samples is detailed in R.17. The sample to be sent to the public analyst should have an outer cover also. The public analyst on receipt of a package containing a sample for analysis shall compare the seals on the container and the outer cover with the specimen, impression received separately and shall note the conditions of the seals thereon. This is provided in R.7. This is a clear departure from the old practice, which came into being with effect from 2nd October, 1976. The report of the public analyst has to be in Form No. III. The second para of the said report inserted by notification, dated 8th July, 1968 read as follows: