GIRESH KUMAR Vs. C S RAJESWARI AMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The former criminal revision petition has been filed by the 2nd accused in ST No. 718/2002 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Neyyattinkara and the latter revision petition has been filed by the 1st accused therein. Though separate appeals were preferred against the judgment in ST No. 718/02 they were dismissed. These revision petitions arise from the common judgment in Crl. Appeal Nos. 255/2006 and 256/2006 filed respectively by the first and second accused. Therefore, they were clubbed together, heard simultaneously and disposed of by this order. The revision petitioners are referred to hereafter in this order according to their status before the Trial Court, and in such manner to suit the situation.

(2.) The first accused is a salesman in 'Girikrishna Restaurant' Neyyattinkara runs by the second accused. On 27/06/2002 at about 1p.m. the Food Inspector, Neyyattinkara Circle who was in charge of Neyyattinkara Municipality, visited 'Girikrishna Restaurant' and expressed her intention to take sample of chicken fry and purchased 1.5 Kgms of chicken fry that was kept for sale. Ext. P6 mahazar was then prepared. It was divided into 3 equal parts and one part of the sample was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis. The remaining 2 samples were sent to the Local Health Authority along with Ext. P10 intimation. The sample of chicken fry on analysis, was reported to be adulterated as per Ext. P12 analyst report. The sample had traces of carmoisine and presence of sunset yellow synthetic colour. Thereafter, sanction was obtained as per Ext. P13 from the Local Health Authority to prosecute the revision petitioners. The complaint was then, filed before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Neyyattinkara alleging commission of offences punishable under S.2(1a)(a)(j), 7(i) and 16(1A)(i) of the PFA Act read with R.29 of the PFA Rules. On getting notice under S.13(2) of the Act the petitioners appeared before the Court and applied for sending sample kept by the local health authority and caused it to be sent for analysis to the Central Food Laboratory. After such analysis Ext. P16 report was submitted confirming the presence of sunset yellow colour FCF in the sample. It was reported to be adulterated, in the said circumstances, owing to the contravention of R.29 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules (PFA Rules).

(3.) On the side of the prosecution PW 1 and PW 2 were examined and Exts. P1 to P24 were marked. There was no oral or documentary evidence on the defence side, going by the judgment of the Trial Court. However, a perusal of the appellate judgment would reveal that in fact, Ext. D1 was marked on the side of the defence. The Food Inspector was examined as PW 1. After evaluation of the evidence on record the learned Magistrate found the accused Nos. 1 and 2 / revision petitioners herein, guilty for offences under S.2(1a)(a)(j), and 7(i) of the PFA Act, 1954 read with R.29 of PFA R.1955 and they were convicted thereunder. Consequently, they were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) each under S.16(1A)(i) of PFA Act and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months. Against the said judgment they preferred appeals unsuccessfully and their conviction and also the sentence were confirmed by the Appellate Court. The above revision petitions have been filed in the said circumstances against the common judgment.