T V Vs. HAMEED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS food adulteration case detected on 28-11-1977 even now awaits its final disposal. According to the advocate, 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 the anxiety to enrich themselves by hook or crook. Without efficient and incorruptible machineries for detention, 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 Addl. Sessions Judge, Ernakulam in Crl. 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 refreshment House", a flourishing hotel run in the heart of Ernakulam situated by the side of Shanmugham Road . Complainant says that he is very rich and influential. Sample purchased from him by PW. 1, Food Inspector on 28-11-1977 was ice cream. Ext. P9 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. P11 certificate of the Director also established that the sample is adulterated. PW. 1 has generally spoken to the observance of all formalities. P. W. 2 is an independent witnesses, who was present at the time of sampling. P. W. 3 is the Public Analyst.

(3.) AFTER remand, the accused seems to have raised three contentions before the Chief Judicial Magistrate. They are (1) vessels and other utensils used by the Food Inspector for sampling were not sterilised (2)the provisions of Ss. 13 (2) and 13 (2a) were not complied with by the Local (Health) Authority, and (3) the Director of Central Food Laboratory did not comply with the provisions of S. 13 (2b ). The Chief Judicial Magistrate negatived all these contentions. As a result the accused was convicted and sentenced to simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for one month. He filed crl. A. No. 16/84 before the Sessions Court, Ernakulam. The appeal was heard and disposed of by Shri V. K. Bhaskaran, Addl. Sessions Judge, Ernakulam. The contentions taken by the accused before him were (1) The Director of Central Food laboratory has not complied with the provisions of S. 13 (2b), (2) the Food inspector has violated the provisions of R. 17 (b) and (3) the Food Inspector failed to comply with the provisions of S. 11 (1) (c) (i ). By judgment dated 31-3-1984, the Sessions Judge negatived the first two contentions. But he accepted that last contention and acquitted the accused on that ground alone. The complainant did not file an appeal. In para. 1 of this order, I have mentioned the reasons given by the advocate why an appeal could not be filed. This case came up before me only because it was taken on suo motu revision by this Court. Notice was issued and I have heard both sides at length.