P P AZEEZ Vs. FOOD INSPECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Food Inspector, Tellicherry Municipality, who was the complainant in S. T. C No. 297 of 1978 on the file of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tellicherry, is the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 444 of 1979. The first accused in that case is the petitioner in Crl. R. P. No. 429 of 1979.

(2.) THE facts of the case are as follows: The second accused is the licensee in res-pect of the Jubilee Dairy in Jubilee Market. Tellicherry, having licence No. 9/g10. The first accused was the salesman in that concern during the relevant period. On 16-12-1976 PW-1 Food Inspector visited the above shop and purchased 675 ml. of toned milk exhibited for sale, after following the formalities prescribed under the Act and on payment of the price thereof. He divided the sample purchased into three equal, parts poured them into three bottles, added formaline and sealed the sample bottles in the presence of witnesses. A mahazar Ext, P3 was prepared. After due packing and sealing one of the sample bottles was sent to the public analyst along with a copy of Form No. VII memorandum and a specimen seal. The remaining two portions of the sample were sent to the Local (Health) Authority. The public analyst issued Ext. P6 certificate in Form No. III. Copies of the certificate were sent to the two accused as prescribed under the rules. Based on the report of the public analyst, a complaint was filed against the two accused.

(3.) THE complainant examined himself as PW-1 and also PW-2 an attestor to the mahazar. Though a case was put forward that the second accused was not running the business the trial Court did not accept the contention. The Court found both the accused guilty, convicted them for offences punishable Under Sections 2 (1) (a) (m) 7 (i) and (v) read with Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (for short the Act ). Both the accused were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000. In default of payment of fine they are to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. The two accused preferred Criminal Appeal No. 90 of 1979 against the conviction and sentence. The Sessions Judge, Tellicherry, upheld the conviction and sentence in respect of the first accused, but set aside the conviction and sentence in respect of the second accused. It is against the order of the Appellate Judge that the appeal and the revision petition have been filed.