KANARAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By judgment in S.T. 3 of 1987, the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nadapuram, found the petitioner guilty under S.16(1)(a) read with S.7(1), 2(1a)and (m) and R.5, Appendix B.A.02.04 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, for selling adulterated curd, to the Food Inspector, Badagara circle, on 26-11-1986 at 11.30 p.m. and was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default to simple imprisonment for one month more. The Sessions Judge, Kozhikode, by judgment on Crl. Appeal No.239 of 1988, confirmed the conviction and sentence which is under challenge in this revision.

(2.) The accused, petitioner herein, is running a hotel in building No.KP 2/82 (3) of Kuttiyadi Panchayath. P. W. 1 visited the hotel at about 11.30 a.m. on 26-11 -1986. He found there curd in cups exposed for sale. He purchased from the accused 600 grams of curd (81/2 cup) for analysis after observing the necessary statutory formalities. The curd was sampled according to the rules and one pan of the sample was sent to the Public Analyst and the other two parts to the Local Health Authority. He had set out the relevant aspects in Ext. P4 mahazar in which the accused and independent witnesses had signed. It appears, the sample sent to the Public Analyst by P.W.1 got destroyed and as required by him, P. W.5, the Local Health Authority forwarded another pan of the sample to him who, after analysis sent a report in Form No.III to the Local Health Authority, based on which the complaint was Had. At the instance of the accused, the remaining pan of the sample was produced before court and it was despatched to the Central Food Laboratory for analysis. Ext. P15 is the certificate which showed that the sample did not confirm to the standards prescribed for curd prepared from buffalo milk.

(3.) Two contentions were raised in this revision and they are (1) that the sampling was not proper, in that care had not been taken to ensure homogeneity of the sample and (2) that there was breach of R.18 and R.4(3) which had prejudiced the accused.