CHOCKALINGAM Vs. FOOD INSPECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In S. T. 360 of 1978, the Additional Judicial I Class Magistrate, Trivandrum, convicted the revision petitioners under S.7(1) read with S.16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced each of them to R.I. for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default to undergo R.I. for one month Crl. Appeal No 95 of 1979 filed by the revision petitioners challenging the conviction and sentence was dismissed by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Trivandrum. This order is challenged in Crl. R. P. No. 301 of 1979.

(2.) The same revision petitioners were convicted by the same Court for a similar offence in S. T. 356 of 1978 and similarly sentenced. The conviction and sentence were confirmed by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Trivandrum in Crl. Appeal No. 94 of 1979. This order is challenged in Crl. R.P. No. 302 of 1979.

(3.) The second revision petitioner is the licencee of a shop dealing in milk and milk products at Karamana in Trivandrum and the first revision petitioner is the salesman in the shop. On 30-8-1978 at about 7.30 a.m., the Food Inspector attached to the Corporation of Trivandrum inspected the premises and after observing all the requirements of law, took two separate samples of milk from two different chambers of the same freezer kept in the shop for the purpose of sale and dealt with the two samples separately under two different mahazars and with two sets of connected documents. The Public Analyst on examining the two sets of samples, reported that the samples did not conform to the standards prescribed in Kerala for milk under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. Therefore the Local Authority (hereinafter referred to as the 'L. H. A.') sent copies of the Public Analyst's report to the revision petitioners in each of the cases along with the intimations as required under S.13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The revision petitioners did not move the court, in either of the cases, for getting samples kept with the L. H. A. analysed at the Central Food Laboratory (for short the 'C. F. L.') However, they pleaded not guilty to the accusation against them. The Food Inspector as well as the witnesses and the L. H. A. were examined in each of the cases and relevant documents were marked. The defence did not tender any evidence. The learned trial Magistrate accepted the prosecution case as proved and the same has been affirmed by the appellate Judge.