FOOD INSPECTOR Vs. P N MUTHU AND CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Food Inspector, Complainant in S. T. Case No. 6/80 on the tile of the Addl. Judl. First Class Magistrate's Court I, Tellicherry is the appellant in this appeal. Accused S in number were charged with offences punishable under the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (for short the Act) and the Rules framed thereunder. Accused 2 to 4 are the partners of the first accused firm which supplied the cotton seed oil to the 5th accused, who is a retailer at Tellicherry. THE said sale by the first accused to 5th accused was covered by Ext. P28 bill. From the 5th accused the Food inspector purchased 600 gms of cotton seed oil after getting a sealed tin opened for the said purpose. On analysis the oil was found adulterated. THE food Inspector after getting the details regarding the partners of the first accused firm laid the complaint against all the 5 accused. THE trial court acquitted the accused on the following grounds: a) Violation of R. 7 (3) b) Violation of R. 9a c) Non-compliance with the provisions of R. 16 (c) and (d) d) Non-compliance with R. 17 e) S. 11 (1) (a) is violated. f) From Ext. P3 and P32 it can be seen that there is a likelihood of mixing up of the sample. g) S. 13 (2) has been violated.

(2.) EXT. P28 is the bill issued by the first accused evidencing the sale of 50 tins of cotton seed oil to the 5th accused. The sale was on 10-11-1979. EXT. P29 extract from the accounts of A5 goes to establish the purchase under EXT. P28. Out of the 50 tins of oil 45 tins have already been sold out. When the Food Inspector, P. W. 4 visited the shop of A5, there remained only 5 sealed tins of cotton seed oil. One sealed tin was opened and 600 gms of cotton seed oil was purchased by the Food Inspector in accordance with the provisions contained in the Act and the Rules. He sampled the same and gave number "182". P. W. 2 is an attestor to EXT. P9 mahazar prepared by the Food Inspector. He fully corroborates the version of P. W. 4 that the sample was taken from the sealed tin which was opened in the presence of the food Inspector at the time of his purchase. Each tin has a capacity of 15 and half kgs. P. W. 2 and 4 further swear that at the time of the sampling A5 had shown the warranty issued by the first accused firm and that all the tins were having the original seal. The Food Inspector sent one sample to the Public Analyst for analysis along with the Form VII memorandum and a specimen impression of the seal with which the sample was sealed. Another Form VII memorandum and specimen impression of the seal were separately sent to the Analyst. After analysis the public Analyst gave his report in Form No. III which contain the following details: " Table:#1 The said sample does not conform to the standards prescribed for cotton seed oil under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 and is therefore adulterated. I am further of or in ion that the sample consists of a mixture of Cotton seed oil fifty percent (50. 0 percent) and soyabean oil, Fifty percent (50. 0 per cent ). "

(3.) VIOLATION of the provision contained in R. 9a has been relied on by the learned Magistrate for acquitting the accused. This Rule enjoins upon the LHA to forward a copy of the result of analysis in Form III to the person from whom the article was taken by the Food Inspector and simultaneously to the person, whose name, address and other particulars have been disclosed under S. 14a of the Act. In this case, the LHA is bound by this rule to send the report to accused 1 to 5, immediately after the initiation of the prosecution. The complaint filed before the court is dated 30-1-1980. The court took it on file on 1-2-1980. Immediately after filing the complaint the food Inspector sent the original of Ext. P5 to the LHA on 30-1-1980 itself. By this letter the Food Inspector has requested the LHA to take further necessary action under S. 13 (2) of the Act. Ext. P6 series 5 in number are the copies of the intimation under S. 13 (2) sent to the five accused. It is dated 1-2-1980, signed by the LHA on 2-2-1980. They were received by the accused 1 and 3 to 5 as seen from the postal acknowledgement receipts Ext. P8 series. The intimation sent to the second accused was returned with the endorsement 'addressee on tour, arrival date not known'.