SOMAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ACCUSED in CC. 88 of 1981 on the file of the Judicial first Class Magistrate's Court, Nedumangad is the petitioner in this revision petition. He was charged with offences punishable under S. 16 (l) (a) (i) read with Ss. 2 (ia) (f) & 7 (l) (iii) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (for short'the Act' ). After trial, the learned Magistrate found the accused guilty of the said offences and convicted him thereunder. Thereupon, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of l,000/ -. In default of payment of fine, it was ordered that the accused must suffer simple imprisonment for three months. This conviction and sentence were challenged before the Sessions Court, Trivandrum in Crl. Appeal No. 259 of 1981. The Appellate court dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction and sentence. Hence this revision petition.

(2.) THE prosecution version is as follows:-On 29-l-1981 at about 2p. m. , the Food Inspector, pw. l visited the provision store belonging to the accused situated in the building having Door No. CS-1099 (2) in Muthuvila in kallara Panchayat. After disclosing bis identity, be purchased 750 grams of peas-dhall (kadalaparippu) from the accused. THE accused received Rs. 4. 50, being the price of the peas-dhall and issued Ext. P3 voucher. pw. l divided the articles into three equal parts and sampled the same in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules. Ext. P4 mahazar was prepared in the presence of witnesses and the accused. Form No. VII memorandum and specimen impression of the seal used for sealing the samples were prepared. One sample was sent to the Public Analyst and the remaining two to the Local Health authority. Form No. VII memorandum and a specimen impression of the seal were separately sent to the Public Analyst. On analysis, the Public Analyst found the article of food to be adulterated. THE Local Health Authority sent a copy of that report along with the required intimation to the accused under registered post, acknowledgment due, immediately after the complaint was filed. Hence the charge.

(3.) PW. l has violated R. 18. I shall proceed to deal with these aspects one by one. 5. The main contention is that the petitioner is not the owner of the provision shop and that he had not sold the peas-dhall to pw. l. According to the learned counsel, the prosecution has not established that pw. l is the owner of the provision shop and so even if there is a sale, the accused cannot be convicted for the offence charged against him. It is the case of the accused that the accused is having a fair price ration shop in the room adjoining the room where the provisions are being sold. An owner of a fair price ration shop is barred from running a provision shop. It is contended that the provision shop belongs to one Babu. The accused has not taken any licence for the sale of provision. dw. l, the Taluk Supply Officer has been examined by the accused to show that the accused is running a ration shop and that no provision can be sold by a ration shop owner from the ration shop. In these circumstances, the learned counsel argues that there is no iota of evidence to show that the accused has any manner of connection with the provision shop and so the accused is entitled to an acquittal. I find it difficult to agree with this argument.