SUO MOTU REVISION PARTNERS Vs. T V HAMEED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This food adulteration case detected on 28.11.1977 even now awaits its final disposal. According to the advocates, who represented the complainant-Food Inspector before me, it was the wealth and influence of the accused which caused all the delays in bringing the offender to justice. Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, has been enacted in the discharge of the governmental duty of eradicating adulteration in food materials, which is a menace to public health and welfare. But what we are noticing is alarming increase of the menace. Adulteration is becoming the rule at the hands of rich and influential manufacturers, distributors and dealers who do not care much for the health of the nation in their anxiety to enrich themselves by hook or crook. Without efficient and incorruptible machineries for detection, analysis and prosecution, it is impossible to have an effective tackling of the menace. Big manufacturers, distributors and dealers invariably escape the notice of those who are responsible for detection. Generally they proceed only against small retailers and petty traders. Random cases of big guns being caught generally end in acquittal with the blessings of those who are responsible for detection and prosecution, by the adoption of several dubious methods. Such methods may be conscious actions or inactions in the matter of observing formalities or giving evidence before court or doing the needful in time. In this case, counsel for the Food Inspector was complaining at the time of arguments that the complainant was not able to prefer an appeal from the order of acquittal entered by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ernakulam in Cr1. A. No. 16/84 only because of the fact that the request for sanction made by the Cochin Corporation was not considered and replied by the Chief Public Analyst, who is the authority competent to accord sanction. If that complaint is correct, the reason is also evident. If so, it is a matter in which the Government will have to make due enquiries and deal with the concerned persons properly. Otherwise eradication of such a menace will be practically out of question.

(2.) Accused in this case is the proprietor of Cochin Re-freshment House, a flourishing hotel run in the heart of Ernakulam situated by the side of Shanmughan Road. Complainant says that he is very rich and influential. Sample purchased from him by P.W. 1, Food Inspector on 28.11.1977 was ice cream. Ext. P-9 report of the Public Analyst proved that it is adulterated. After prosecution, on the application of the accused one sample with the Local (Health) Authority was sent to the Central Food Laboratory and Ext. P-li certificate of the Director also established that the sample is adulterated. P.W. 1 has generally spoken to the observance of all formalities. P.W. 2 is an independent witness, who was present at the time of sampling. P.W. 3 is the Public Analyst.

(3.) The only contentions raised by the appellant before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam in CC. No. 21/78 were that the sampling was not proper and Exts. P-9 and P-li reports are not correct. The Magistrate found that ice-cream purchased by P.W. 1 was not a representative sample since the purchase was not from a portion vertically cut and stirred properly to ensure homogeneity and hence sampling was not proper. This opinion was further confirmed by him on the basis of the divergent opinion contained in Exts. P-9 and P-li. As a result the accused was acquitted.