MAMMU Vs. FOOD INSPECTOR KUTHUPARAMBA PANCHAYAT BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by the accused who has been convicted by the District Magistrate of Tellicherry for an offence punishable under S.16(1) read with S.7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). On 28-3-63 at about 2-30 p.m. Pw. 1 the Food Inspector of the Kuthuparamba Panchayat visited the shop of the accused and purchased 300 grams of tea dust which had been exposed for sale among other things. It was then duty sampled and one portion was sent to the Public Analyst and his report showed that the sample contained coaltar dye and hence it was adulterated. The accused when questioned has admitted the purchase and the sampling. Pw. 2 is one of the persons who was present at the sampling and has attested the mahazar Ex. P2. On a consideration of the evidence the learned District Magistrate found that the offence had been made out and convicted and sentenced the accused to pay a fine of Rs. 50/-.

(2.) Learned counsel for the accused has now raised various technical objections. The first point is that there was a violation of the mandatory provisions contained in S.10(7) and hence the entire trial and the conviction resulting therefrom are vitiated; secondly that Ex. P4 the certificate of the Public Analyst does not contain sufficient data and his mere opinion alone cannot be acted upon; thirdly that there is no valid authorisation for the prosecution of the accused; and lastly that there was non compliance of R.7 and 18 of the rules framed under the Act.

(3.) Regarding the objection that there was contravention of the provisions of S.10(7) of the Act, I am unable to see how there is contravention. In this case Exts. P1, P2 and P3 are attested by two witnesses, one of whom is examined as Pw. 2 and the other is the Bill Collector of the Panchayat. Both the attestors need not be examined. Even otherwise the effect of non compliance with the provisions of S.10(7) has been considered in the case in Food Inspector, Cannanore Municipality v. Kannan ( 1964 KLT 198 ) wherein the entire case law has been reviewed and following a Division Bench ruling of this court in Criminal Appeal Nos. 92, 112 and 114 of 1960 (not reported) it was held that non compliance with the provision of S.10(7) of the Act would only be an irregularity and the question which would arise on such non compliance would be whether the accused is prejudiced and whether the evidence adduced is worthy to be acted upon. Here the accused has admitted the purchase and sampling and there could have been no prejudice caused to the accused.