FOOD INSPECTOR CALICUT Vs. ABDUL SALAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition for special leave to appeal against the order of acquittal in S.T. Case No.51 of 1983 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kozhikode filed under S.378(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code.

(2.) Two accused were proceeded against for offences punishable under S.16(1)(a)(i) read with S.2(ix)(c) and S.7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act for having sold cotton seed oil as if it is palm oil.

(3.) First accused is the owner of the shop and actually he is the person in charge of the shop also. Second accused is an young boy who is admittedly the younger brother of the first accused. It is also not disputed by the petitioner (PW 1 complainant) that at the time when he purchased the sample from the second accused, the second accused was only in temporary charge of the shop during the interval when the first accused had gone home for meals. It is rather admitted that even when the petitioner was preparing the sample and before the arrival of the first accused, he was told by the second accused that he does not know anything about the business in the shop. The defence suggestion is that when the petitioner asked for Palm Oil the second accused, who could not distinguish between various types of oils kept in shop, gave Cotton Seed Oil mistaking it to be Palm Oil.