K BALAKRISHNAM Vs. FOOD INSPECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the first accused before the Judicial Magistrate of first Class, Kuthuparamba in STC.314 of 1993. He was tried for offence under Sec.16 (1) a (i) read with Sec.7 (i) and Sec.2 (ia) and (m)of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and Appendix B. (A.18.06)to Rule 5 of the PFA Rules, 1955. He was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of six months under Section 16 (1) a (i) read with Sec.7 (i) and Sec.2 (ia) and (m) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and Appendix B. (A.18.06) to Rule 5 of the PFA Rules, 1955. The said conviction and sentence were challenged in appeal before the Session's Court, Thalassery. But the appeal was dismissed, confirming the conviction and sentence. Hence this revision.

(2.) The first respondent filed a complaint before lower court alleging that petitioner sold adulterated green gram kept exposed for sale from the grocery shop bearing No. IX/258, where petitioner was working as salesman. PW1 took sample in accordance with the provisions of the PFA Act, complied with the legal formalities and filed a complaint against petitioner and owner of the shop as second accused, since sample was found to be adulterated. To prove the prosecution case, PWs 1 to 7 were examined and exhibits P1 to P7 were marked. The accused examined DWs 1 and 2 and marked Exhibit D1.

(3.) Learned counsel for petitioner vehemently contended that the conviction is bad for want of notice under Sec.13 (2) of the PFA Act, according to the petitioner, he had not received any notice, as contemplated under Sec.13 (2) of the PFA Act and hence he has lost a valuable right to get the sample analysed by the Central Food Laboratory and this has caused prejudice to him and therefore he is entitled for an acquittal. On going through the judgments of the courts below, I find that this point was argued and the same contention has taken before the lower courts also but those were rejected by the court. As per the evidence, notice under Section 13 (2) was issued by registered post acknowledgment due to petitioner. Exhibit P25 is the cover addressed to the petitioner and Exhibit P26 is the copy of the intimation under Sec.13 (2 ). On a perusal of the same would show that the notice was issued under Sec.13 (2) of the PFA Act to the petitioner. But it was returned with the endorsement "addressee left, present address not known, returned".