PAPPU Vs. FOOD INSPECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DOES a mere vendor of a food article require licence to sell such article? Can he be convicted for violation of R. 50 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules (?the P. F. A. Rules' for short) in the absence of holding a valid licence to sell the food article?

(2.) THE revision petitioner was found guilty and convicted by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class for offences punishable under Ss. 16 (1) (a) (i) and 16 (1) (a) (ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as "the P. F. A. Act? ). It was held that petitioner sold adulterated food article and that he did not have licence as per R. 50 of the P. F. A. Rules. Therefore, as a vendor he is liable for sale of adulterated food article and also for not having licence to sell the article. In appeal, Sessions Court set aside the conviction and sentence passed against the Revision Petitioner under S. 16 (1) (a) (1) of the P. F. A. Act and he was acquitted of the said offence, finding that petitioner did not sell any adulterated food article. However, it was held that Revision Petitioner was not having any licence at the time of sampling to sell the food article and hence conviction and sentence passed against him under S. 16 (1) (a) (i) were confirmed. The challenge in this revision is against such conviction and sentence.

(3.) ACCORDING to prosecution on 25. 3. 1992, PW-1 the Food Inspector inspected the shop bearing No. 10/33 of Malayattoor-Neeleswaram Panchayat and took samples of `cow pea'. The food article was sold by the petitioner to the Food Inspector. Sampling was done in accordance with the provisions of the P. F. A. Act and the P. F. A. Rules. On analysis, the sample was found to be adulterated. The petitioner did not have licence for sale of food article under R. 50 of the P. F. A. Rules and hence he is liable for such violation. The petitioner also is the owner of the business and he is guilty of violation of R. 50 of the P. F. A. Act as owner also.