SUKUMARAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioner was charged with the offence punishable under S. 16 (1) (a) (i) read with S. 7 (1) of the Prevention of Food adulteration Act, and was found guilty of the same.

(2.) THE case against him is as follows: On 11-8-1965 at about 11. 30 a. m. pw. 1, the Food Inspector of Kulasekharapuram Panchayat, went to the accused's shop and purchased from the accused 600 gms. of Thomara Parippu' for 75 paise from the stock kept for sale in the shop after giving due notice that it was intended for analysis. THE accused gave Ext. P2 cash bill after receiving the price. As enjoined by law pw. 1 then divided the Thomara Parippu' into three equal parts and packed each part in a separate bottle and labelled and sealed it. One bottle was entrusted with the accused who gave Ext P1 (a) receipt for the same, another bottle was sent to the Public Analyst and the third bottle was retained by pw. 1. Ext. P3 is the mahazar drawn up for the purchase of the article and sampling and it was attested by the accused and two other witnesses. THE report of the analyst is that the sample consisted of lac dhall otherwise known as Kesari dhall, and was therefore a prohibited article for sale. On the basis of the report of the analyst pw. 1 filed the complaint against the accused.

(3.) THE next point argued by counsel was that the accused had not sold Kesari dhall to P. W. 1 and that the evidence to that effect cannot be acted upon. THE accused denied his signatures in Ext. P1 (a), the receipt for the sample given to him, in Ext. P2, the cash bill for the purchase of dhall, and in Ext. P3 mahazar. On a comparison of the handwriting the lower appellate court came to the conclusion that the signatures in these documents are those of the accused. P. W. 1 has sworn that the accused signed them. P. W. 2 turned hostile, but he had admitted his signature in Ext. P3 mahazar. In his evidence he said that he bad not witnessed the sale of the article or of the sampling. But the courts below were satisfied that he was not speaking the truth when he said that he had not witnessed the sale of the article or the sampling. P. W. 3 is a sweeper attached to the panchayat office and he had accompanied P. W. 1 to the shop in question. He has sworn in clear terms about the truth of the contents of Ext. P3 mahazar. He has been believed by both the courts below. THE attack made against the evidence of this witness is that he is under the influence of P. W. 1. THE courts below were not satisfied that this was a sufficient ground for disbelieving him. Sitting in revision we see no reason for a different conclusion. THE argument that the requirement of S. 10 (7) has not been satisfied in this case is without any merit. We dismiss the revision petition. Dismissed.