T K PURUSHOTHAMAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondents 3 and 4 in this revision were the accused in C.C. No. 8 of 1987 before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Ambalapuzha. They were tried for offence punishable under Ss. 2(a)(m), 7(i), 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and were found guilty, convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to .pay a fine of Rs, 1,000/- each with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for three months. The allegation was that on 17-10-1986 at about 2.30 p.m. the second accused sold 1500 grams of adulterated suji wheat rawa to P.W. 1 from the shop owned by the first accused who had employed him as the salesman. In Cri. Appeal No. 54 of 1989 filed by the accused before the Additional Sessions Judge, Alapuzha, the conviction and sentence were set aside and the case the remanded to the trial Court for fresh disposal after impleading the petitioner herein whom the Court found was the manufacturer of the adulterated food article. The judgment is under challenge in this revision.

(2.) The accused raised a defence under S. 19(2) of the Act before the trial Court which considered it in detail and declined to extend its benefit to them. The Court also felt it unnecessary to implead the manufacturer under S. 20A of the Act and observed: "The allegations made before Court do not show that there are connecting links between the activities of the so-called manufacturers and the accused as to constitute the same transaction. There is no evidence to show as to who parted with the article of food to the accused. Nothing is known as to who had sold suji wheat rawa to the accused. There is no material to show that the so-called Suresh Cottage Industries had manufactured the article in question and had sold the same to the accused. Thus the accused could not prove that the article sold from the shop of P.W. 1 was purchased from the so-called manufacturer. Cash memo if any also could not be produced. These circumstances only throw doubt on the genuineness of the defence plea. The prescribed warranty in Form VI-A under R. 12A of the. P.F.A. Rules must contain the name of the person to whom it is issued, the particulars of date of sale, the nature and quality of the articles sold, the date and place where the warranty is issued and other details. The nature of the firm also is not made clear. ********************* Thus the defence could not in the first instance show that the accused persons had purchased the article in question in the packed condition from any manufacturer on the basis of a warranty and had sold the same in that very condition. From the available evidence it can only be come to the conclusion that the accused were not entitled to the protection under S. 19(2) of the P.F.A. Act .......

(3.) The appellate Court, however, took a different view. It summoned the petitioner, questioned him as to the label found on the packets and held that it was prima facie satisfied that he is the manufacturer of the adulterated article. I cannot agree that the appellate Court was justified to do so in the appeal filed by the accused against their conviction and sentence. What the appellate Court did was something which was neither legal nor proper. It was an exercise beyond its jurisdiction while hearing the appeal.