FOOD INSPECTOR Vs. MOOSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the Food Inspector, Palghat Municipality. A complaint was filed by him against the accused respondents for offences punishable under S.16(i)(a)(i) and 16(1)(g) read with S.7(1) and S.2(1a) (a) and (m) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

(2.) Pw-1, Food Inspector, visited the shop of the second respondent in Big Bazaar, Palghat, at about 11.15 a. m. on 19-6-1978. He purchased 600 grams of "Raja Brand" Sambar Powder for the purpose of analysis. This powder was in 12 packets of 50 grams each. After following the formalities prescribed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act pw. 1 broke the packets and mixed them in a paper. The powder was then divided into three equal parts and each part was put in a clean and dry bottle. The bottles were packed and sealed as directed in the rules framed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. A mahazar was prepared in the presence of witnesses and attested by them. One of the samples was sent for analysis The Public Analyst in his report Ext. P7 stated that the sample did not conform to the standard prescribed for curry powder under the rules framed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and therefore was adulterated. The second accused pleaded that he purchased the article under a warranty from the first accused. The complaint was filed against both the accused.

(3.) The first accused contended that be did not get the report of the public analyst, that the name of his firm is "Raja Products" and that he was not doing the trade in the name of "Raja Brand" and that the bill, under which the second accused claimed to have purchased the articles was not from anybody representing his firm. He therefore claimed that be was not liable for any offence. The second accused admitted having sold sambar powder and having issued the bill and signed on the sample bottles. He however contended that no standard has been fixed for Sambar powder and that the article is something different from the curry powder, for which the standard has been fixed. A contention was also raised that there was contravention of R.7(3) of the rules framed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, and also of R.22A and as such the prosecution was not maintainable.