FOOD INSPECTOR Vs. ALIKUTTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is Food Inspector, Parappanangadi. He inspected the shop of the respondent situated within his jurisdiction and purchased a sample of cumin seeds in accordance with the provisions of the prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the relevant rules. One sample was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis. The Public Analyst submitted a report Ext. P6 giving his opinion that the sample did not conform to the standards prescribed for cumin under the rules and was therefore adulterated. In due course, prosecution was launched in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the rules. The respondent pleaded not guilty. Prosecution examined four witnesses and marked Exts. P1 to P14. There was no evidence adduced on behalf of the defence. Ext. P6 mentioned the percentage by weight of cumin, foreign seeds, other extraneous matter but did not state that the sample contained any insect infested grain. Therefore, learned Magistrate concluded that the Analyst had failed to analyse the sample as contemplated in the Act and the rules That was because, in the opinion of the Magistrate, the analyst had not given the data as contemplated in appendix A. 05. 09. Accordingly, respondent was acquitted. The acquittal is being challenged by the complainant.

(2.) THE result of analysis is stated in Ext. P6 thus: "the sample consists of Cumin, Foreign Seeds and extraneous matter including Stalk, Stem and dust. and I am of the opinion that the said sample does not conform to the standards prescribed for Cumin (Cuminum Cyminum) under the prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 and is therefore adulterated. "

(3.) APPENDIX B to the rules prescribes standards for the food articles mentioned therein. In laying down the standards, the rule making authority bad taken into consideration the fact that the presence of a percentage of foreign matter could not be reasonably be expected to be avoided in all articles. At the same time, the rule making authority thought that all efforts must be made to reduce such foreign matter to the minimum so as to keep the food articles wholesome. Therefore, in regard to each food article, the maximum percentage of such foreign matter whose presence could be allowed or at any rate, not treated as culpable was determined and prescribed. In cumin, for example, edible seeds other than cumin seeds that is, foreign seeds could be present upto 5 percent by weight but not beyond that. Other extraneous matter including dust, stones, lumps of earth, chaff, stems, or straw could be present upto 7 percent by weight but not beyond that. Similarly, the rule tolerates the presence of insect damaged matter upto 5 percent by weight and not beyond that. When any of these three components is present in excess of such permitted percentage, the sample has to be treated as not conforming to the standard prescribed under the rules. Of course, if foreign matter is not at all present, it is open to the Public Analyst to state so specifically. Or it may be that in such cases, he may not refer to foreign matters at all. Even if he mentions them, he has to mention the percentage as zero. Similar is the case regarding other extraneous matter and insect damaged matter. If the Public Analyst does not state the percentage of such matter, the necessary inference is that such matter is not present in the sample. Of course, this approach may not be suitable in a case where the rules provide mandatorily for the presence of any particular component or substance. Suppose, in any given case, the standard prescribed by the rules require the presence of a minimum percentage of a particular component, it is the duty of the Public Analyst to mention that component and also to mention the percentage of the component present and should not omit to refer to that component. But where he is dealing with a component whose presence is to be avoided, if possible, and where the rules prescribe that such a component could be present only upto the maximum prescribed, if the analyst finds it totally absent, he need not necessarily refer to it and state that it is totally absent. The failure to mention the percentage can safely be taken to mean that that component is totally absent. In this view, it is clear that the Public Analyst on analysis did not find any insect damaged matter in the sample. The sample, in other words, was free from insect damaged matter though the rules permit presence of such matter upto 5 per cent by weight. Absence of reference to insect damaged matter would not render the analysis illegal or irregular or the result of the analysis unacceptable.