FOOD INSPECTOR Vs. M M ABDUL RAHIMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed challenging the judgment of acquittal passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate in two cases involving offences under S.16-1A and 16(1)(a)(ii) respectively of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 against the respondents, who were accused Nos. 1 and 2. After trial, the learned Magistrate, however, found that there were very many infirmities in the prosecution proceedings and in the absence of sufficient evidence, acquitted the accused.

(2.) When the matter was taken up today, the learned Public Prosecutor was asked as to how a single appeal could be maintained when the challenge is of judgment passed in two cases, though clubbed together. He conceded that only one appeal has been filed; but could not explain the discrepancy. As opted by him, I treat this as an appeal from the judgment in C.C. No. 388/87.

(3.) The case is one of very peculiar facts. Though offence under the PFA Act is alleged against the accused, the actual seizure from the shop was made by the Sub Inspector of Police, Kalady, and not by any Food Inspector. According to the prosecution, the said Sub Inspector of Police, while on patrol on 26.6.87, got reliable information that misbranded rice was stored in the rice mill of one Moosakutty in Makkalady. After preparing a search memorandum, he searched the rice mill which was found closed and found 710 Kgs. of rice stored there. Even by appearance, he was convinced that the rice was adulterated with addition of colour. His doubts were confirmed when he found a gunny bag containing the adulterant - red powder. He seized both the items and removed them to the Police Station and registered Crime No. 107/87 under S.102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and thereafter informed the matter in writing to the Food Inspector, Angamaly, requesting him to take sample from the rice and from the red powder for the purpose of analysis.