POULOSE Vs. FOOD INSPECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Criminal Revision Petition No.701 of 1989 was filed by the sole accused against his conviction and sentence confirmed in appeal.Crl.R.C.No.71 of 1989 is a suo motu revision against the direction in the Judgment of the appellate court remanding the case for awarding sentence after confirmation of the conviction.

(2.) In C.C.No.342 of 1987 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nedumkandam the revision petitioner was prosecuted by the Food Inspector, Devikulam Circle for having sold adulterated sugared boiled Buffalo milk as well as for dealing in food items without the requisite licence. Prosecution was on the basis of Ext. P7 report of analysis which showed that the milk fat and milk solid hot fat contents were below the minimum prescribed and that the sample also contained 16% of added water.

(3.) The Complainant Food Inspector examined himself as P.W.1. P.W.2 is an independent attestor who was present, when action was taken. He attested Ext. P5 mahazar. P.W.3 is the Local Health Authority, who was also present when the sample was taken. P.W.4 is the peon who was along with P.W.1. He also attested Ext. P5. These are the relevant items of evidence taken along with the concerned document.