PETTA ALIAS PATTABI Vs. FOOD INSPECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This motion is by the 2nd accused against his conviction under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.

(2.) On September 22, 1964, he took to T. N. V. Coffee Club, Palghat, buffalo's milk that belonged to the 1st accused, a licensed milk vendor. The Food Inspector has sworn that he was awaiting the 2nd accused, 20ft. away from the Coffee Club, from 5.30 a.m. that day, that the 2nd accused 'passed in front of him rather close by' at about 6.15 a. m., that when the accused entered the Coffee Club, he followed him to the interior of the Coffee Club and then purchased milk from him for sampling though the accused refused to take the price offered by him on the ground that the milk taken is not his and that the accused 1 and 2 have once before been convicted under the Act. On analysis the milk taken was found to contain not less than 28% of added water. P. W. 1 is the Food Inspector, P. Ws. 2 and 3 employees of the Coffee Club, who have attested the mahazar prepared by the Food Inspector, and P. W. 4 the peon of the Food Inspector who accompanied him. The 2nd accused, in his statement under S.342, said that the milk was not taken from his pot but from the vessel of the Coffee Club into which he emptied the pot when there was other milk in it. He refused to take the price offered by the Food Inspector because the milk taken by the latter did not belong to him. P. W. 3 has sworn categorically that the milk sampled by the Food Inspector was taken from a vessel kept in the Coffee Club, to collect milk from several vendors, that before the 2nd accused other vendors had come and poured their milk into it, and that the practice of the Coffee Club was to wash into that vessel the last drop of milk in the vendor's pot with water to dilute the milk for boiling. The District Magistrate found the 2nd accused guilty and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/-; and, on appeal, the same have been confirmed by the Sessions Judge, Palghat. Hence this motion for revision.

(3.) Where the offence is highly anti social and revolting and therefore likely to rouse an emotional prejudice in the mind of the Court, a greater care in the scrutiny of the evidence is called for. The offence here is a grave one punishable with a drastic sentence in which imprisonment for a year or more and fine not less than Rs. 2000/- are mandatory. Prudence requires that the action of the Food Inspector on which the charge rests should be such as to inspire confidence in Court. The seizure and sampling by the Food Inspector should have been made in the presence of persons above susceptibility of his influence. S.10 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, before its amendment by Act XLIX of 1964, read thus: