ABDUL HAMEED KHAN Vs. MUHAMMAD HANEEFA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against an order of acquittal. The case of the complainant, the Food Inspector of the Quilon Municipality , was that the accused a shop-keeper sold him adulterated tea. On 7-9-1960 the complainant purchased three-fourths of a pound of tea dust from out of the stock of 65 pound which was exposed for sale in the accused's shop. The complainant paid the price of Re. 1. 31 np. to the accused who received it and issued a cash bill signed by him in favour of the complainant. Notice of the intention to have the tea analysed was given to the accused then and there and he accepted it. One part of the sample taken was delivered to the accused and he acknowledged receipt of it. A mahazar was drawn up giving the details about the sale, the sampling and the delivery of the sample to the vendor and that record was also signed by the vendor. The report of the Public Analyst showed that the tea was adulterated as the sample contained 10% extraneous matter consisting of a mixture of gram husk and coffee husk. The accused admitted having sold three-fourth pound of tea to the Food Inspector. He also admitted having issued the cash bill and signed the mahazar and the intimation. However he denied having accepted the price for the tea and added that he was induced to sign the cash bill, the mahazar and the intimation form by the Food Inspector under threat of criminal prosecution.

(2.) THE learned Magistrate held that there was no sale of the tea to the complainant as the sale was effected with the knowledge that the buyer was the Food Inspector. THE mahazar was eschewed from evidence on the ground that it offended Art. 20 (3) of the Constitution against compulsory self-incrimination. THE Analyst's certificate was not acted upon since the learned Magistrate was of the view that in the absence of evidence to establish that gram husk and coffee husk were injurious to health the tea that was sold cannot be deemed adulterated. THE correctness of all these findings is challenged in appeal.

(3.) THE learned Magistrate's view that the tea could not be characterised as adulterated in the absence of evidence to prove that extraneous matter like gram husk and coffee husk found in the tea was injurious to health is also faulty. It is against the very definition of the term'adulterated' given in the Act. S. 2 (i) of the Act defines the word adulterated and it says that an article of food shall be deemed to be adulterated if it satisfies one or other of the conditions prescribed in sub-clauses (a) to (1 ). Under Sub-clause (1) an article of food shall be deemed to be adulterated: "if the quality or purity of the article falls below the prescribed standard or its constituents are present in quantities which are in excess of the prescribed limits of variability; "the prescribed standard for tea and its constituents are given in Appendix B under Item A. 14. Tea is defined therein as: "tea derived exclusively from the leaves and buds of plants of the Camellia genus and the species". and the specifications to which it shall conform are also mentioned. Needless to say we do not find gram husk or coffee husk recognised as proper constituents of tea. Hence tea containing these items falls below the quality or purity prescribed for it and has therefore to be deemed adulterated apart from any consideration as to whether such extraneous matter is injurious to health.