FOOD INSPECTOR Vs. PURUSHOTHAMAN NAIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I think in this case I should emphasise what the supreme Court said in Ganeshmal Jashraj v. Government of Gujarat (AIR. 1980 SC. 264) There speaking for the Court Justice Bhagwati quoted from the anonymous poet: "the law looks up both man and woman Who steals the goose from off the common, But lets the greater felon loose Who steals the common from the goose. " There the learned judge said that most of the cases of food adulteration which come to the Courts are cases directed against small tradesmen such as grocers, milk-venders etc. It is common knowledge, the judge continued, that these small tradesmen purchase the food stuff sold by them from the wholesalers and sometimes even directly from the manufacturers and more often than not the adulteration is made either by the wholesalers or by the manufacturers. Ordinarily, Justice Bhagwati points out. it is not the small retailers who adulterate the article of food sold by them. Yet it is only the small retailers who are caught by the food inspectors and the investigative machinery of the food department does not for some curious and inexplicable reason turn its attention to the wholesalers and manufacturers. According to the learned judge, which I think represent the true state of facts, the small tradesmen who eke out a precarious existence living almost from hand to mouth are sent to jail for selling food stuff which is often enough not adulterated by them and the wholesalers and manufacturers who really adulterate the food stuff and fatten themselves on the misery of others escape the arm of the law. His Lordship pointed out that a wrong impression is being created on the public mind that the law is being properly enforced, whereas in fact what is really happening is that it is only the small tradesmen who are quite often not themselves responsible for adulteration who are caught and sent to jail. There is a gross indifference and inaction, which allows wholesalers and manufacturers to carry on their nefarious activities, untouched and unaffected by the penal law. There in regard to the duty of the Food Inspector it is pointed out: "we fail to see why at the time of taking samples from the small retailer, the food inspectors do not care to find out from which wholesaler or manufacturer he had purchased the particular food stuff and after ascertaining the name of such wholesaler or manufacturer, proceed immediately to the place of business of such wholesaler or manufacturer and take samples for the purpose of finding out whether the food stuff which is being sold by him is adulterated or not. " Even in cases where the manufacturer or wholesaler is out of bounds for the prosecution being outside the jurisdiction nothing prevents the prosecutor to get those manufacturers or wholesalers impleaded in the proceeding, for which there is ample power given to the court under S. 20a of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. It is necessary the learned Magistrate should also take into account this provision: "20a. Power of court to implead manufacturer etc. Where at any time during the trial of any offence under this Act alleged to have been committed by any person, not being the manufacturer, distributor or dealer of any article of food, the court is satisfied, on the evidence adduced before it. that such manufacturer, distributor or dealer is also concerned with that offence, then the court may, notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (3) of S. 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), or in S. 20 proceed against him as though a prosecution had been instituted against him under S. 20. "

(2.) IN this case on 30-1-1978 the complainant, Food inspector of the Perumbavoor Municipality, bought from the respondent-accused 600 gms. (packets of 100 gms. each) of coriander powder, from out of a larger quantity stocked and exhibited for sale in his shop. Upon analysis the sample was found to contain 9 per cent wheat flour and accordingly adulterated.