JOSEPH Vs. GOPINATAHAN NAIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners were the accused in C. C. 28/65 on the file of the Addl. First Class Magistrate of Meenachil. THEy were charged by the health Inspector of Palai Municipality under S. 16 (1) (a) (i) read with S 7 of the prevention of Food Adulteration Act Act 37 of 1954 (shortly stated the Act) in that they were found to possess adulterated cow's milk intended for sale.

(2.) FIRST accused is the clerk and the second accused the secretary of the Palai Milk Supplies Co-operative Society. At about 10. 30 a. m. on 16-1-64 the Health Inspector of the Palai Municipality visited the depot of the society and purchased therefrom 24 oz. , of cow's milk for analysis on payment of a price. The milk purchased was then bottled and sealed in three bottles as required by the rules and on analysis by the Public Analyst it was found to be deficient in fat to the extent of not less than 20% and therefore adulterated. After that the accused in exercise of the powers under S. 13 of the act sent through court the sample which was entrusted to him, to the Central food Laboratory for analysis. They wrote back saying that the sample was infested with fungus and hence unfit for analysis. Thereupon the sample left in the custody of the court was sent to the same laboratory at the instance of the complainant and the report was that it was adulterated. Thus on the basis of the report of the Central Food Laboratory the accused was convicted. On appeal to the Sessions Judge of Kottayam the conviction and sentence were confirmed.

(3.) THIS court in State of Kerala v. Revathi Amma (1963 klt. 474) has also condemned the practice of not carrying out the analysis promptly and has taken the view that beyond three months the delay would be unreasonable and the composition of milk under such circumstances is likely to undergo changes. THIS court observed on the authority of a Text Book on the subject that: "in the opinion cited above the word months' is used as opposed to the word days What is stated there is that a certain amount of formaldehyde will preserve milk for three or four days and a larger amount will preserve milk for months. Quite probably the term'months' will cover a period of three months. " THIS aspect of the case viewed in the light of the glaring draw-back already pointed out is sufficient to entitle the accused to an acquittal. I would, therefore, allow the revision, set aside the conviction and sentence and acquit the accused. Fine, if paid, would be refunded. Allowed.