NABEESA MUNDOLI Vs. FOOD INSPECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the verdit of guilty, conviction and sentence under S.16(1)(a)(i) and S.7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, the petitioners (accused 1 and 2) have preferred these revision petitions.

(2.) The prosecution alleged that accused No.2 on behalf of accused No.1, licensee of Sona Restaurant at Paramount Tower, Calicut had sold 750 ml of milk to the Food Inspector, PW.3, which, on analysis was found not to comply with the standards prescribed for buffalo's milk under the relevant Rules. It was alleged that thereby the accused had committed the offence alleged against them.

(3.) The accused denied the offence alleged against them. Thereupon the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 4 and proved Exts.P1 to 5. PW.3 is the Food Inspector and PW.4 his Peon. The accused No.1 took the stand that she had no connection with the establishment. Accused No.2, inter alia, contended that there was no proper sampling. The Food Inspector had no jurisdiction to draw the sample as the milk was not intended to be sold as such milk at the Restaurant. It was further contended that at any rate it must be held that there is no adulteration as the sample does conform to the standards prescribed for cow's milk and the standards applicable for buffalo's milk were wrongly applied to the sample. Another employee of the Restaurant was examined as DW.1. Ext.D1 menu card of the Restaurant was also produced and marked. A Court exhibit was marked as Ext.C1.