FOOD INSPECTOR CHITTOOR Vs. MARIAPPAN CHETTIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent in this revision petition was prosecuted for an offence under S.16(1)(a)(ii) read with S.7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act - Act 37 of 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) - for having stocked for sale and sold 500 grams of Thuvaraparippu which, on analysis, has been found to be adulterated with coaltar dye. Where a second offence is committed by the accused under the Act, S.16(1)(a)(ii) provides for enhanced punishment which may extend to two years and so the case was tried as a warrant case.

(2.) After the prosecution witnesses were examined the following charge was framed against the accused by the learned District Magistrate:

(3.) On appeal to the Sessions Judge of Palghat it was contended that the charge for enhanced punishment ought not to have been clubbed along with the charge for the substantive offence and on that account the entire trial is vitiated. Reliance was placed on the following observation in Moidu v. Food Inspector, 1961 KLT 415