FOOD INSPECTOR Vs. ABDULLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Food Inspector, Cannanore Municipality is the appellant. The Food Inspector purchased 750 grams of orange syrup from the accused and after complying with the formalities under the Act and Rules one part of the sample was sent for analysis. The Analyst's report Ext. P-10 states that the sample does not conform to the standard prescribed in the Act. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate acquitted the accused on the ground that the prosecution is vitiated by non verification of the second sample sent for analysis by the court as provided under S.13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

(2.) S.13 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act provides that the Public Analyst shall deliver, in such forms as may be prescribed, a report to the Local (Health) Authority all the results of the analysis of any article of food submitted to him for analysis. On receipt of the report from the Analyst that the article of food is adulterated it is the duty of the Local (Health) Authority after the institution of complaint against the person from whom the sample of article of food was taken to forward a copy of the report of the result of the Analyst informing him that if he desires to make application to the court within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the report to get the sample of the article of food kept by the Local, (Health) Authority analysed by the Central Food Laboratory. S.13(2A) provides that when an application is made to the court by the person from whom sample was taken by the Food Inspector to forward the part or parts of the sample kept by the Local (Health) Authority and upon such requisition being made, the said authority shall forward the part or parts of the sample to the court within a period of five days from the date of receipt of such requisition. S.13(2A) provides that the court shall first ascertain that the mark and seal or fastening as provided in clause (b) of sub-s.(1) of S.11 are intact and the signature or thumb-impression, as the case may be, is not tampered with, and despatch the part or, as the case may be, one of the parts of the sample under its own seal to the Director of the Central Food Laboratory who shall thereupon send a certificate to the court in the prescribed form within one month from the date of receipt of the part of the sample specifying the result of the analysis. Thus from a reading of S.13(2B) it is clear that the court has to follow certain procedures. It is seen from the petition filed by the accused for sending the second sample for analysis that the Magistrate ordered 'put up'. When the sample was produced the Magistrate ordered 'sent the sample'. There is no endorsement either on the petition or on the docket sheet of the case as to whether the Magistrate has complied with the procedure contemplated under S.13(2B) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

(3.) Under S.114(e) of the Evidence Act all judicial acts and official acts have to be presumed to be regularly performed. The presumption can be drawn only when there are some records or proceedings to show that the court had atleast substantially complied with the mandatory provisions under S.13(2B) of the P.F. Act. When under the statute certain procedure is prescribed to be strictly complied with, it is for the person who alleges that it has been followed to prove it. In this case there is no evidence that the Magistrate has complied with S.13(2B) of the Act. On that ground the Court below was justified in rejecting the complaint.