BALAN Vs. FOOD INSPECTOR ALWAYE MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner herein, 2nd accused in S T. No. 23/79 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Alwaye has been convicted under S.16(1)(a)(i) read with S.2(ia)(a), 7(i) and (v) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, (for short, the Act), and sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for two months. The conviction and sentence have been confirmed by the Sessions Court in appeal. The first accused has been acquitted.

(2.) Pw. 1, Food Inspector, Alwaye Municipality laid the complaint against the two accused alleging that on 20-2-1978 at about 7.15 a.m. when the revision petitioner (2nd accused) was taking, for the purpose of sale cow's milk belonging to the first accused, to the Alwaye Ksheeravyavasaya Cooperative Society Limited, of which the first accused is a member, the Food Inspector approached the 2nd accused and after conforming to all the requirements of the Act and the relevant Rules, purchased 675 m.l. of milk from the revision petitioner for the purpose of analysis, sampled the same in accordance with law and duly sent one of the samples to the Public Analyst and the other two samples to the Local (Health) Authority as required by law and the Public Analyst reported that the sample did not conform to the standard prescribed for cow's milk and was therefore adulterated. On being appraised of the report, Pw. 1 laid the complaint and in due course copy of the report and intimation as contemplated under S.13(2) of the Act was forwarded to the revision petitioner. Both the accused appeared and pleaded not guilty. The 1st accused denied that he gave any milk to the revision petitioner, and the latter denied the prosecution case. The prosecution examined 4 witnesses and marked Exts. P1 to P15. The defence did not render any evidence. The Trial Court held that the revision petitioner sold a sample of adulterated cow's milk to the Food Inspector and therefore was guilty of the offence alleged. The Trial Court also held that the 1st accused could not be convicted because a copy of the report along with intimation under S.13(2) of the Act was not sent to him and there was no evidence to connect him with the sample of milk.

(3.) On the broad facts and circumstances of the prosecution case there could not be any serious dispute regarding the sampling. The Food Inspector, Pw. 1, spoke to the occurrence, the details of the occurrence and various steps taken by him. His competency is not in dispute and is proved by his evidence and Ext. P1 notification. Ext. P2 is the copy of Form VI notice served on the revision petitioner with the latter's acknowledgement on the reverse. Ext. P3 is the voucher issued by the revision petitioner for the price of milk paid by the Food Inspector. Ext. P4 is the mahazar prepared by the Food Inspector in the presence of two witnesses Pws. 2 and 3 and also signed by the revision petitioner. Ext. P5 is the copy of Form VI memorandum prepared by Pw. 1, also containing specimen impression of the seal used to seal the sample packet. Ext. P6 is the Railway receipt, under which one of the samples was sent to the Public Analyst. Ext. P7 is the letter accompanying the two samples etc. sent to the Local (Health) Authority. Ext. P8 is the postal acknowledgement of the Public Analyst for having received Form VII memorandum and specimen impression of the seal sent separately by registered post. Ext. P9 is the copy of the specimen impression slip. Ext. P10 is the copy of the letter sent to the Public Analyst along with specimen impression of the seal. Ext. P11 is the report of the Public Analyst. In the two courts below there was a contention raised that no independent witnesses had been called and the contention was overruled. Pw. 2 declined support to the prosecution case and he was cross examined on behalf of the complainant. But Pw. 3 supported the prosecution case, The evidence of Pw. 2 that he did not see the occurrence cannot be countenanced since he signed the mahazar. He was present in the Society at the time. He is an employee of the Society. It cannot be said that these witnesses are interested or not independent witnesses. In these circumstances I do not find any infirmity in the prosecution case regarding the purchase of milk from the revision petitioner and sampling made by Pw. 1.