FOOD INSPECTOR Vs. KODUNGALLUR S S BANK LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the Food Inspector, Karumallur Panchayat , against the judgment of acquittal of the three accused in S. T. No. 40 of 1979 on the file of the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Alwaye , of offences punishable under S. 2 ( ia ) (a) & (m) and7 (i ) and (v) read with S. 16 (1) (a) (i ) and (ii) and Appendix B. A. 20 of R. 5 of the P. F. A. Rules and R. 50 (i ) (K) read with R. 10 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules.

(2.) THE first respondent is a service Co-operative bank, represented by its Secretary; the second respondent is the secretary of the bank and the third respondent is the Salesman of the Consumer Store, run by the bank near U. C. College, Alway e. It has been urged that the Food Inspector, the petitioner herein, visited the consumer store of the first respondent-bank, at which the third respondent was the salesman, at about 11. 00 A. M. on 19-1-1979. He purchased from the third respondent a sealed bottle containing 750 ml. of coconut vinegar, which was exhibited for sale. It is further alleged that the vinegar was divided into three equal parts and sampled as per the Rules, and one part of the sample was forwarded to the public Analyst for analysis and it was found to be adulterated. It was further klt. food inspector v. kodungallur s.s. bank ltd. ( Sivaraman Nair J.) 29 alleged that the accused had not taken out a P. F. A. Licence for selling food articles from the Panchayat for the relevant period. THE prosecution wasbased on these allegations.

(3.) THE State has come up in appeal under S. 378 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It was urged on behalf of the State that the interpretation of R. 22a of the Rules is not correct, that the Secretary of the Bank Could be proceeded against since he is the custodian of all stock under Ext. P16 bye-laws of the Society and is responsible for all transactions in the Society and that conducting business in food articles without a licence from, the appropriate authority was an independent offence which can be subject matter of a separate charge. In the nature of the contentions, the documents which are material are ext. P5 mahazar , Ext. P10 copy of memorandum in Form no. VII, Ext. P11 report of the Public Analyst, Ext. P15 letter of the District Food Inspector to the 3rd accused and Ext. P16 Bye-laws of the Bank. On the side of defence Ext. D1; which is a certified copy of judgement in C. C. No. 470 of 1976 on the files of the same court was marked.