K VIJAYAKUMAR Vs. FOOD INSPECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PROCEEDINGS in a criminal case in which the allegation is regarding the commission of the offences under the prevention of Food adulteration Act are sought to be quashed by one of the accused mainly on two grounds; one, non-compliance of the provision in Section 13 (2) of the Act and two, not obtaining proper sanction for prosecution as envisaged in Section 20 of the Act before filing complaint in Court. Petitioner is the third accused in the case and the allegation against him and the other two accused is that they committed the offences under Section 2 (1a) (m) read with Section 7 (i) (v) and appendix B. A. 25. 02. 01 punishable under Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" ).

(2.) ON 19-11-1996 at 11. 15 a. m. the Food Inspector, vellinizhy Grama Panchayat (Mannarkkad Circle), after observing necessary prescribed formalities, inspected the grocery shop in 7/491 where the first accused was doing business. According to the Food Inspector, the first accused told him that he was the licensee and salesman of the shop. ON giving Form VI notice to him the Food inspector obtained the counterfoil singed by him. ON paying Rs. 100/- and on obtaining a cash receipt the Food Inspector purchased form the first accused one packet of mixed fruit chewing gum (chiclets)exhibited in the shop of the first accused for sale. Thereafter, he divided the chiclets purchased into three equal parts and on properly packing, sealing and labeling the same, one sample along with Form VII Memorandum was sent to the public Analyst, Regional Analytical Laboratory, Kozhikode for analysis. Remaining two parts of the sample were sent to the local health authority, vellinizhy Panchayat along with copies of Form VII Memorandum and specimen impressions of the seal used to seal the sample. The Public Analyst in Form III report dated 24-12-1996 gave the opinion that the mixed fruit chewing gum does not conform to the standard prescribed for chewing gum under the Prevention of food Adulteration Rules, 1955 and hence adulterated. According to the Food inspector, the second accused is the stockist and distributor for the third accused. The Food Inspector, who is the first respondent in this petition, filed Annexure-I complaint in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First class, Ottapalam alleging commission of offences under the Act. According to the first respondent, the third accused, who is the petitioner, is the depot manager from whom the second accused obtained the adulterated chiclets. There is also statement in the complaint that the District Food Inspector, Palakkad informed the first respondent that there was no nomination under the Act for the Company.

(3.) BEFORE the amendment of the Act, what the section said was that three samples had to be taken by the Food Inspector and one sample had to be sent to the Public Analyst, another sample had to be given to the accused and the other sample had be kept by the Food Inspector for purpose of depositing the same in Court. After getting the report of chemical analysis the prosecution had to be launched against the accused, if the report of chemical analysis said that the food article was adulterated. Section 13 as it stood before amendment, gave a right to the accused to make an application in Court with a prayer to send the sample which was kept with him to the Central Food laboratory and the Court, after complying with all formalities with regard to the condition of the sample and the seal, had to send the same to the Central food Laboratory. The report of Central Food Laboratory would override the report of the Public Analyst. After the amendment, the Food Inspector need not give a sample to the accused. One sample has to be sent to the Public Analyst for chemical analysis and the remaining tow samples have to be sent to the local (Health) Authority. As a result of the amendment, the two samples have to be kept by the Local (Health) Authority and hence there is the necessity of giving a notice at the time of sending the copy of the report of Public Analyst informing the accused of his right to get one of the samples kept by the Local (Health) Authority examined in the Central Food Laboratory and the Legislature made provision for that in the Act.