STATE OF KERALA Vs. P T MATHEW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State has filed this appeal against the order of the Additional First class Magistrate, Muvattupuzha acquitting the respondent of the charge under S.7(1) read with S.16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Apt 1954 (Act 37 of 1954) in that the respondent sold to Pw. 1, Food Inspector, some 2 Kg. of prepared food known by the name "Madakasan" on 11-10-1969. The sample when analysed by the Public Analyst, Kerala was found adulterated as the food 'contained metanil yellow, a non permitted coal tar dye (Vide Ext. P6). Pw. 1 purchased the sample on 11-10-1969 and Ext. P6, the report of the Public Analyst, is dated 7-11-1969. However, the complaint against the respondent was filed in court only on 13-1-1970 after the lapse of more than two months. During the trial of the case, the respondent applied to the court on 23-2-1972 for sending the sample retained by Pw. 1, Food Inspector to the Director of Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta, as required by S.13(2) of the aforesaid Act. But the report of the Director was that the sample food was highly decomposed and that therefore it could not be analysed.

(2.) The learned Magistrate held that on account of the delay in filing the complaint after the seizure of the article, prejudice has been caused to the respondent by depriving him of the right of testing the correctness of the Public Analyst's report by getting the sample analysed by the Central Food Laboratory and that it is unfair and unjust to enter a conviction against the respondent whose rights were prejudicially affected by the laches of the prosecution. Accordingly the Magistrate acquitted the respondent.

(3.) Though the delay in the instant case was only two months in filing the complaint after the analysis of the sample by the Public Analyst, the nature of the food in the instant case was such that it would have decomposed in a short period of time. It is not the case of Pw. 1 that he added any preservative to the sample. It is also not proved that the sample in question would have retained its purity and freshness for any length of time. Under those circumstances the delay of two months in this case, taking into consideration the nature and quality of the food sample, could not be ignored.