SATHYASEELAN Vs. FOOD INSPECTOR ALLEPEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is the owner of a bakery and cool drinks shop by name 'Crown Bakery and Cool Drinks', Alleppey. Food Inspector, Alleppey Municipality (first respondent) filed two complaints (C. C. 94 and 95 of 1983) against him before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alleppey. C.C. No. 94 of 1983 is for having exposed for sale and sold adulterated "yellow water milk" and the offence alleged is punishable under S.16(1)(a)(i) and (ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act for having violated R.44(b) read with S.2(ia), (b) and (c) and S.7(1) and (v). In C. C. 95 of 1983 the allegation is that he stored and sold adulterated 'Ics milk' and thereby committed an offence punishable under S.16 (1)(a)(i) for having contravened S.2(ia) (m) read with S.7(1). In both the cases the complainant and witnesses were examined and the Magistrate framed charge. Against the framing of charge in C. C. 94 of 1983 the petitioner filed Crl R. P. No. 46 of 1984 and the legality of the charge framed in C. C. No. 95 of 1983 was challenged in Crl. R. P. No. 45 of 1984, both before the Sessions Judge, Alleppey. Both the criminal revision petitions were dismissed. The two petitions filed under S.482 of the Criminal Procedure Code are for quashing the respective charges and all the proceedings in the two cases.

(2.) Petitioner says that even if all the allegations in the two complaints and the evidence of the witnesses are taken as correct they will not disclose the offences alleged and hence not only the charges framed by the Magistrate but also cognizance taken by him are illegal and hence the charges and the entire proceedings in both the cases will have to be quashed. If the argument is correct the charges and the entire proceedings will amount to abuse of process of court and this court will have to quash them under the inherent power.

(3.) The complaint in C.C. 94 of 1983 and the charge framed in that case are evidently liable to be quashed and the Public Prosecutor who appeared on behalf of the Food Inspector was not able to support the charge or the order passed by the Sessions Judge in revision refusing to set aside the charge. The allegation in the complaint and the evidence of witnesses including the Food Inspector is only that the petitioner exposed for sale and sold "yellow water milk". That is the name given by the petitioner for some cool drinks prepared by him with milk, water, sugar and some other components. It was analysed by the Public Analyst as if it is milk and found to be adulterated only because it contained added water to the extent of 73 per cent. The Food Inspector had no case that it was exposed for sale or sold as milk His definite case is that it was exposed for sale only as "yellow water milk" and what he demanded and purchased was only "yellow water milk".