G KRISHNANKUTTY NAIR Vs. P M GEORGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Food Inspector, the complainant in C. C. No. 14 of 1981 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Changanacherry, is the appellant. He challenges the order of acquittal passed by the Court below. Accused, two in number, who are the partners of the provision store situated in building No. V/591 of Chandanacherry, were prosecuted for offence under Sections 2 (1a) and 7 (1) read with S. 16 (1) (a) (i), Prevention of Food adulteration Act.

(2.) THE Food Inspector demanded 750 grams of black gram dhal from the first accused by issuing Ext. P1 Form VI notice. THE receipt of that notice is evidenced by the signature on the reverse of Ext. P1 which is marked as Ext. P1 (a ). THE first accused sold the said quantity under Ext. P2 cash bill on receipt of Rs. 3. 45. THE said article of food was sampled in three clean dry bottles and sealed it as per the provisions of the Act and the Rules. Ext. P. 3 is the mahazar prepared by the Food Inspector evidencing the action taken by him. One sample, along with Form VII memorandum, was sent to the public Analyst for analysis. Another copy of the Form VII memorandum and specimen impression of the seal used to seal the sample packet were separately sent to the Public Analyst by registered post. THE other two samples, with Form vii memorandum, were sent to the Local Health Authority. THE Public Analyst issued Ext. P9 report stating that the black gram dhal contained inorganic pigments of Magnesium silicate and therefore adulterated. THE report reads as follows. "microscopic Examination :- THE sample consists of blackgram dhall without husk. Foreign matter - Nil Damaged and insect infested gain - Nil Moisture - 9. 8 per cent by weight Coating of tale - Present Test for Magnesium - Positive Test for Silicate - Positive Talc (Magnesium - 0. 7 per cent by Silicate) weight and am of the opinion that the said sample is coated with talc, an inorganic pigment, and is therefore adulterated. " On getting the report, the Food Inspector filed complaint before Court. He intimated the Local Health Authority about the filing of the complaint. THE Local Health Authority then sent the intimation under S. 13 (2)and Rule 9a to the accused. THEy did not ask for sending a sample to the director of Central Food Laboratory for analysis.

(3.) ACCUSED contended that the black gram dhal purchased by the Food Inspector was part of the dhall purchased by them from M/s. K. H. Mohammed Ismail and Company, Changanacherry under Ext. D1 Cash Bill, that they are protected by the warranty contained therein and that they sold the article in the same state as they purchased it. To prove this, the 2nd accused got himself examined as D. W. 1. His statement in the chief examination that the blackgram dhall sold by them was properly stored and that it was sold in the same state as they purchased it was not challenged in cross-examination. It therefore goes to show that the prosecution proceeded on the basis that the accused sold the dhal in the same condition as they purchased it under Ext. P1.