FOOD INSPECTOR CANNANORE MUNICIPALITY CANNANORE Vs. PANDAVALAPPIL KANNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is by the Food Inspector of the Cannanore Municipality against the order of acquittal passed by the Sessions Judge in a case in which the District magistrate convicted the accused under Section 16 (1) (a) and 16 (2) read with section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to simple imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 2,000. The learned Sessions Judge by judgment dated 16th September 1964 acquitted the accused for the failure on the part of the Food Inspector to comply with the requirements of Section 10 (7) of the act. The complainant took the matter in appeal to the High Court. The appeal was allowed, holding that non-compliance with Section 10 (7), even if it exists, is only an irregularity and it was open to the Court to consider whether the evidence of P. W. 1 could safely he accepted. The case was therefore remanded for fresh disposal to the Sessions Court. Then the appellant raised two fresh grounds of attack against the order of conviction; (i) that the quantity of formalin added was insufficient and (ii) that there was no proper compliance of Rules 7 and 18 of the food Adulteration Rules. On a proper consideration of the evidence of the Food inspector and taking into account the fact that P. W. 2 the attestor who though literate said that he had signed the record without understanding the contents with a view to help the accused, the court held that P. W. 1 purchased the sample of milk from the accused after complying with the prescribed procedure. The objection that the required quantity of formalin was not added was also found against adopting the evidence of P. W. 1 which was not even challenged on that point. However the previous order of acquittal was maintained on the fresh ground that there has been no proper compliance with Rules 7 and 18 of the Prevention of food Adulteration Act.

(2.) RULE 18 reads as follows:

(3.) IN the absence of evidence to hold that the sample seal was sent by the Food inspector and was compared with the seal on the sample packet by the Analyst, the learned Sessions Judge held that those provisions were not complied with. The court refused to draw the presumption under Section 114 (e) of the Evidence Act holding that the presumption could not be extended to the actual doing of the official acts but only to their performance in a regular manner. Observing that there are no decisions of the Kerala High Court on the point the learned Judge sought guidance from the decision reported in State of Gujaral v. Shantaben, 1964 (2) Cri LJ 32: (AIR 1964 Guj 136 ).