STATE OF KERALA Vs. REVATHI AMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed by the State against the acquittal of the accused in a Food Adulteration Case. The complainant is the Food Inspector of the Tellicherry Municipality and the accused is the Tellicherry Cooperative Milk Society represented by accused 1 to 3 the President, Secretary and Supervisor of the Society. The accused Society is in charge of the milk supply to the Tellicherry Government Hospital. On 30-5-1960 while accused 3 was delivering milk as usual at the hospital, the complainant purchased 24 ounces of milk from him for purposes of analysis. The Public Analyst to whom the sample of milk was sent reported that it was adulterated as it was found to contain 7% of added water. The accused were thereupon charged under S.7 & 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act for selling adulterated milk.

(2.) The learned District Magistrate, Tellicherry who tried the case acquitted all the accused. The order of acquittal was based on the grounds that statutory notice of the sampling was not given to the first accused and the notice given to accused 2 was belated, that there were serious defects in the process of packing and transmitting the sample for analysis and that the inordinate delay of about three months in getting the sample analysed rendered it unsafe to place any reliance on the result of the analysis. It is not necessary to canvass the correctness of these findings as the main grounds on which the order of acquittal was sought to be supported by the learned counsel for the respondents are (i) that the conviction of accused 1 and 2 could not in no way be sustained because they have proved that the offence was committed without their knowledge and that they had exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of the offence; and (ii) that the Analyst's report could not be acted upon because of the failure to add formalin to the sample in the prescribed proportion, namely, two drops per ounce of milk.

(3.) As mentioned earlier the first accused is the President and the second accused is the Secretary of the Society. Both of them are honorary workers. The second accused as dw. 1 has given evidence as to the working of the Society and the method of collection and distribution of milk. There are three collecting centres for milk. There the cows are 'milked under the supervision of the depot manager and before they are filled into the can a lactometer reading is taken and then the milk is poured into the cans and sealed. After the milk is collected and sealed by the depot supervisors and distributors both of them have to sign warrantees like Exts. D 3 and D 3(a) regarding the purity of the milk and send it on to the office. When the sealed can is taken to the hospital the same is opened in the presence of another supervisor of the Society. The supervisor then signs a similar warrantee in regard to the milk supplied at the hospital also. Lactometers are supplied by the Society to the employees at the various centres. Under the bye laws the office manager is enjoined to carry out the overall supervision of the day to day working of the society and except for the surprise inspection that is carried out by the Secretary there is no rule or bye law which enjoins the Secretary or President to carry out regular inspection of the collection and distribution of the milk. Ext. D 4 the minutes book of the Society shows that on 16-11-1955 it was resolved to introduce subsidiary bye laws to the effect that the responsibility of supplying adulterated milk to the public and the customers was on the depot keepers, supervisors and distributors and a copy of that resolution was communicated to the concerned employees. The correctness of the evidence of Dw. 1 on these matters is not challenged. Thus the evidence of Dw. 1 has established that the adulteration was made without the knowledge of accused 1 and 2 and also that they had exercised all due diligence to prevent adulteration of the milk. The acquittal of accused 1 & 2 has therefore only to be confirmed.