KELAPPAN Vs. FOOD INSPECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused in C.C.No. 219 of 1976 on the file of the Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tellicherry, is the petitioner. The Food Inspector, Cannanore Municipality, Cannanore is the respondent. The petitioner was prosecuted by the respondent for an offence under S.16(1)(a)(1) and 7(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, for short the Act, in that he carried with him buffalo milk which was adulterated with 46% of water. At the first instance the petitioner was convicted of the offences charged and sentenced to undergo R.1, for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, In appeal, the Sessions Judge, Tellicherry, acquitted him on the ground that R.18 of the rules framed under the Act was not complied with The respondent filed an appeal before this Court as Criminal Appeal No. 48 of 1978. This Court set aside the order of acquittal passed against the petitioner on the ground that R.18 of the Rules was not mandatory and remanded the case to the Sessions Court directing the Sessions Judge to consider the matter afresh. Thereafter, the Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction and sentence awarded to the petitioner. Hence this revision.

(2.) The revision petitioner has, in his challenge against the conviction and sentence, raised various grounds; non compliance with R.14 of the rules, R.20 and 21 of the rules, R.15 and 17 of the rules and also S.10(7) of the Act, In addition to these grounds, he contends that the prosecution against him is bad for non compliance with R.9(j) of the rules. I am not convinced that any of the grounds raised in the revision, except the ground under R.9(j) needs consideration at my hands because the conclusions arrived at by the learned Sessions Judge on the other grounds have to stand.

(3.) The counsel for the respondent contends that it is not open to the petitioner at this stage to canvass the correctness of the conviction and sentence on this new ground since it was not raised at any time either before the Trial Court or before the appellate Court or even before this Court at the first instance. According to him, the fact that the objection based on R.9(j) was not so raised is indicative of the fact that no prejudice was caused to the petitioner.