T A OUSEPH Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was convicted by the District Magistrate of Trichur in C. C. 177 of 1965 for an offence under S.16 (1) (a) (ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) read with S.7 (1) thereof, and sentenced to undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/. He filed Crl. Appeal 109 of 1965 before the Sessions Judge of Trichur who dismissed the appeal upholding the conviction, but reduced the sentence to three months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-. The petitioner has filed this revision petition against the aforesaid conviction and sentence.

(2.) The case against the petitioner was that the Food Inspector, who is pw. 1 in this case, purchased from the petitioner, who is a trader within the Trichur Municipality, toor dhall on 16 3 1965 along with other articles of food, and on analysis by the public analyst, the toor dhall was found dyed with coal tar dyes and therefore adulterated. Ext. P-4 is the report of the public analyst. The conviction of the petitioner is based on this report. The petitioner's learned counsel contended that Ext. P-4 should not be acted on; and he raised three points in support of this contention. They are (1) the Food Inspector did not comply with the requirements of sub-sections (5) and (7) of S.10 of the Act, (2) there is no evidence that the public analyst complied with the requirements of R.7, and the Food Inspector complied with the requirements of R.17 and 18, of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) with regard to sample taken and sent for examination to the public analyst and (3) Ext. P-4 does not contain any data or the reasons for the finding that the sample analysed contained coal tar dye and was adulterated. These points may be considered in seriatim.

(3.) The second proviso to sub-section (5) of S.10 of the Act states that "the Food Inspector shall, in exercising the powers of entry upon, and inspection of any place under this section, follow, as far as may be, the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Act V of 1898) relating to the search or inspection of a place by a police-officer executing a search warrant issued under that Code". S.103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure relating to search, of which sub-sections (1) and (2) alone are relevant here, reads as follows: