SHANMUGHAN P V Vs. FOOD INSPECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner is the first accused, a salesman of a toddy shop stands convicted for the offence under Section 16(1) (a)(ii) of the P.F.A. Act and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for two months and also convicted for the offence under Section 16(1) (g) (ii) and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month.

(2.) The prosecution case is that on 14.9.1993, the Food Inspector took the sample of vinegar from the outfit of which the licensee is the second accused and the same on testing at the public analysts laboratory was found to be adulterated. The prosecution evidence consisted the testimony of PWs' 1 to 3, CW's 1 and 2, Exts. P1 to P16 and court Exts. C1 to C3. The second accused, the alleged licensee was acquitted. It is the contention of the revision petitioner that the vinegar was not kept for sale and the same was stored for using for the preparation of dishes in the toddy shop. It is also pointed out that PW3, the Food Inspector has no case that the vinegar was an item displayed for sale as contemplated under Rule 50(15) of the PFA Rules. Of course, PW3 was testified that he purchased vinegar, issued form VI notice (Ext.P6) to the first accused and paid Rs.24/- as price of vinegar and obtained Ext. P7 receipt. Hence, according to him vinegar was meant for sale. It was proved that the same did not confirm to the standard prescribed vide appendix A20. The total solids percentage was found to be less than the standard percentage. In the instant case, the same is 1.12% as per the Central Food Laboratory report.

(3.) The revision petitioner relied on the decision reported in Food Inspector vs. Mathew (1988(2) KLT 356) to substantiate the contention that receipt of price on demand by the Food Inspector cannot be taken as conclusive of proof of the fact that the article was meant for sale. The counsel has also relied on the decision reported in Anas Abdul Khader vs. Food Inspector (2003(3) KLT 1072) as to the fact that unless there is evidence that the article was meant for sale, no offence is committed.