N S KUNJUMOHAMMED Vs. FOOD INSPECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The second accused in S. T. No.781/ 1989 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kunnamkulam is the revision petitioner. He was found guilty of the offence punishable under Sec.2 (ia) and (j) and Sec.16 (1) (a) (i) read with Sec.7 (i)and (v) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and Rule 5 Appendix b. A.18.04 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. He was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months under Sec.2 (ia) and (j) and Sec.16 (1) (a) (i) read with Sec.7 (i)and (v) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and Rule 5 Appendix b. A.18.04 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. Criminal Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed.

(2.) Pw1 is the Food Inspector. PW1 filed a complaint alleging that on 19.8.1986 he went to the shop owned by the first accused. At that time the petitioner was working as a salesman in the shop. The Food Inspector purchased 600 grams of besan from the second accused after serving Ext. P2 form VI notice. The sample purchased was divided into three parts. One packet was sent to the Local Health Authority and another sample was sent to the Public Analyst. On analysis the sample was found to be adulterated. Hence the complaint. The learned Magistrate took cognizance. When the revision petitioner appeared before the learned Magistrate copies of records were furnished to him. The particulars of offence were read over and explained to the accused. They understood the same and pleaded not guilty. PWs 1 to 4 were examined and Exts. P1 to P17 documents proved and marked. After the evidence of prosecution was over, the accused was questioned under Sec.313 of Criminal Procedure Code. They denied all the allegations levelled against them. The learned Magistrate found the first accused not guilty of the charges levelled against him and acquitted. The revision petitioner was found guilty, convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days. The revision petitioner filed Crl. Appeal No.193/1994 before the Sessions court, Thrissur. The appeal was also dismissed. Hence this Criminal revision Petition.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has argued that there is no legal evidence to hold that the petitioner was working as a salesman in the shop. It is argued that no records from the Shops and establishments Department or the Labour Department were produced to show that the revision petitioner was employed as a salesman in the shop run by the first accused. It is argued that the petitioner who came to the shop to purchase some provisions was falsely implicated in the case to save the first accused in this case. It is further argued that serious prejudice was caused to the revision petition on account of the defective questioning of the accused under Sec.313 of Criminal Procedure Code. It is argued that none of the incriminating circumstances brought out during evidence were put to the petitioner at the time of questioning under Sec.313 of criminal Procedure Code and the revision petitioner did not get an opportunity to explain his case.