(1.) FOOD Inspector, Shornur Municipality is the appellant. He visited Regal Bakery, Shornur on 21-12-1979 and demanded milk cream after disclosing his identity. A Form VI notice was given to the first accused, who was in charge of the bakery. The first accused sold 900 grams of milk cream for a value of Rs. 9/ -. Cash Bill given by the first accused is Ext. P3. The said quantity of milk cream was duly sampled. Divided it into three parts and poured it into three clean, dry bottles. Those three bottles were sealed and paper tags were affixed. One sample was sent to the public Analyst along with Form VII memorandum and specimen impression of the seal used for sealing the samples. Another Form VII memorandum and specimen impression of the seal were sent to the Public Analyst separately by regd. post. The remaining two bottles of sample and the Form VII memoranda were sent to the Local (Health) Authority. The Chemical Examiner after analysis found the sample to be adulterated. On getting the report of the Analyst through the local Health Authority, the FOOD Inspector filed the complaint before Court. He then informed the Local (Health) Authority of the prosecution proceedings, Immediately the Local (Health) Authority forwarded the notice contemplated by S. 13 (2) and r. 9a to the first accused. On getting that notice, the first accused applied to the court to have one sample analysed by the Director of Central FOOD laboratory. The Court sent one of the samples obtained from the Local (Health)Authority to the Director of Central FOOD Laboratory. The Director, as per Ext. CI report, found the article of food to be adulterated.
(2.) TO bring home the guilt of the accused, P. Ws. 1 and 2 were examined, Exts. P1 to P14 were marked and the report of the Director of Central food Laboratory was marked as Ext. CI. After considering this evidence, the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused on the ground that no standard has been prescribed in the Act or the Rules for milk cream and that the Food inspector has not complied with R. 16 to 18 of the Prevention of Food adulteration Rules. Hence the appeal.
(3.) R. 16 to 18 deal with the manner of packing and sealing the samples, the manner of despatching the containers of samples and the memorandum and impression of seal to be sent separately. According to learned magistrate, the Food Inspector has violated these provisions in the sense that he had not stated the same in the mahazar prepared by him. I do not find any merit in this statement. In Ext. P4 mahazar, the Food Inspector has given the vivid details of the various steps taken by him in sampling the 900 grams of milk cream purchased. As P. W. 1, he had spoken to all the minute details. Even otherwise, all the actions done by the Food Inspector were done in the discharge of his official duties. Those actions are to be presumed to be done properly. So, in the instant case. P. W. 1 has not only sworn to all the minute details, but also is entitled to the protection of the presumption under S. 114 of the Evidence Act. No question has been put to the Food Inspector challenging any of the actions carried out by him in sampling the quantity of milk cream purchased and in sending the same to the Public Analyst and to the Local (Health) Authority. Therefore, I hold that the Food Inspector has strictly complied with the provisions of the Act and the Rules in regard to the purchase, sampling and despatch of the same to the Local (Health) Authority and to the Public Analyst. The contrary view taken by the learned Magistrate is against the evidence and I overrule the same.