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 Ss.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 grain 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. <FRM>JUDGEMENT_1529_CRLJ_1987Html1.htm</FRM> 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.) To prove the prosecution story, they examined P.Ws. 1 to 4 and marked Exts. P1 to P14. On the side of the accused Dws. 1 and 2 were examined and Ext. D. 1 marked. PW 1 is the Food Inspector. He has sworn to all the steps taken by him in the purchase of 750 grams of blackgrarm dhall, the sampling of the same and the despatch of the same to the Public Analyst and to the Local Health Authority. He has deposed to the minutest details. Ext. P3 is the mahazar prepared by him at the time of the sampling. P.W. 3, an independent witness who has attested the mahazar, has also supported the evidence given by P.W. 1.