USMAN Vs. FOOD INSPECTOR KOZHIKODE CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners in all these cases were tried separately for offence under S. 16 read with S. 7 of the Prevention of Food adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and R. 44a of the rules framed thereunder and were found guilty and convicted by the learned District magistrate of Kozhikode. On appeal to the Sessions Judge the conviction and sentence were confirmed. THEy have now come up in revision. THE question that arises for decision in all these petitions being the same it would be convenient to deal with them by one common judgment.

(2.) TWO questions have been raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. The first question is whether the courts below were justified in accepting the certificate of the Director of the Central Food laboratory to find that the sample was, in fact, the prohibited variety of kesari dhal; and secondly whether R. 44a of the rules framed under the Act is ultra vires and violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Art. 19 of the Constitution. The decision on the second point has been concluded by the recent decision of the Full Bench of this court in Food Inspector, Quilon v. Padmanabha Pillai (1964 KLT. 1023), where it was held that R. 44a is not ultra vires and upholding the legality of total prohibition of sale, offering for sale, exposure for sale or having in possession for the purpose of sale kesari dhal.

(3.) NOW what is contented is that microscopical examination is not a safe or sure test and that the result of the analysis stated in the certificate is not conclusive and sufficient to arrive at a finding that samples were really kesari dhal. Pointed reference was made to the words used in the certificate "similar" to kesari dhal and starch structures "resemble" those of kesari dhal. Regarding the value of microscope in food analysis, Woodman in his book on Food Analysis, 4th Edn. at page 45 has stated: "with many classes of food materials, such as spices, cocoa, coffee & cereal products, the examination for adulterants is far from complete unless the sample has been examined with the microscope. This is because the microscope often reveals much more clearly than does chemical analysis the nature of the adulteration. For instance, the chemical analysis of a sample of cocoa showed that the amount of starch present was somewhat greater than usually corresponds to the other constituents, but left the analyst in doubt as to whether the amount was greater than could still be explained by the possible natural variation in starch content of genuine cocoa, or implied added starch. The microscope, however, in this particular case showed at a glance the presence of a distinct amount of arrowroot starch, a form that differs so markedly from the starch of the cocoa bean as to be readily distinguished from it. It would surely not be too much to say that in detecting certain forms of adulteration the microscope is the main reliance of the food Analyst. . . " To the same effect are the observations in David pearson's book on Chemical Analysis of Foods regarding the value of microscopical examination. So no objection can be taken to the procedure adopted by the Central Food Laboratory.