RAJEEV Vs. FOOD INSPECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this criminal revision, conviction of the revision petitioners/accused under the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (in short, "the Act") is under challenge. The trial court tried them for offences punishable under Sections 2(ia)(b)(j), 7(i)(iii) and 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act read with Rules 23 and 50 and A.16.16 of Appendix B of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (in short, "the Rules") and convicted them for all the said offences. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the revision petitioners approached the Sessions Court in a criminal appeal. In the appeal, learned Additional Sessions Judge partly modified the conviction and sentence. The conviction under Section 7(i) read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act was confirmed. Against that conviction, the accused persons have come up in revision.

(2.) THE allegations in the complaint, filed by the Food Inspector, in brief, are as follows: 1st accused is the manager of Parisudham Restaurant attached to Panchami Tourist Home and Bar Hotel at Vazhakkulam. 2nd accused is the owner and licensee of the said hotel. On 01.06.1995 at 2.30 p.m., the complainant visited the hotel and after disclosing his identity, he gave notice to the 1st accused. The complainant purchased 600 grams of lime pickle kept in a steel vessel in the restaurant of the accused. It is alleged that the food item was kept for sale. Sampling was done in accordance with law. One sample was sent for analysis to the Public Analyst with the prescribed memorandum. The other two samples were forwarded to the Local Health Authority along with two copies of Form VII memorandum. The Public Analyst, reported that the sample purchased from the accused was adulterated. Therefore, the prosecution was initiated against the accused persons for violating the law. On receipt of intimation under Section 13(2) of the Act, the 1st accused applied for sending the second sample to the Central Food Laboratory ("CFL", in short). Accordingly the second sample was sent to CFL and report of CFL was obtained. It also revealed that the sample was adulterated. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate completed the formalities and the accused were tried. In the trial, three witnesses were examined on the side of the prosecution and one on the side of the defence. Exts. P1 to P20 were marked by the prosecution.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the revision petitioners argued that the conviction and sentence is against law and evidence in the case. It is the grievance of the revision petitioners that the courts below did not consider the fact that the allegations in the complaint raised by the Food Inspector have no legal basis. It is further contended that during trial, the report of the Public Analyst was not marked. The accused thereby lost an opportunity to challenge the correctness of the report of CFL as it is in complete variance with the report of the Public Analyst. Further, the courts below did not consider the worth of testimony of D.W. 1, a Professor in Chemistry, Department of Nutrition, Kerala Agricultural University.