V K ABDUL AZEEZE Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge, Tellicherry recommending that the conviction and sentence entered against the accused for offences under the Food Adulteration Act be quashed as the main item of evidence against them, namely the certificate of the Public Analyst that the item of food sold by the petitioners was adulterated is not of a conclusive nature.

(2.) The facts are not in dispute. The respondents are the proprietor and the salesman of a grocery shop in Cannannore. On 21st December 1960 the Food Inspector of the Cannanore Municipality bought some Thuvara dhall from the shop for purposes of analysis. The sample was analysed by the Public Analyst and certified to be adulterated. The petitioners were tried before the District Magistrate, Tellicherry who convicted them under S.16(1) read with S.7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced them each to pay a fine of Rs. 50 or in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 14 days. The matter was taken in revision before the Sessions Judge, Tellicherry. The learned Judge felt that the certificate of the Public Analyst was not valid as it was too vague and did not contain enough data. He has therefore recommended that the conviction and sentence entered by the Trial Court be set aside.

(3.) We must say that we cannot find our way to accept the learned Judge's recommendation. It seems to us that there should be no difficulty in accepting the certificate as proof that the sample analysed was adulterated. The certificate reads thus: