STATE OF KERALA Vs. RAJAPPAN NAIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 11-12-1974 the Food Inspector, Trivandrum Circle, examined as P. W. 1 in the case, purchased from the provision store of the accused-respondent 600 gms. of turmeric powder in six packets. After following the formalities prescribed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (for short the Act) one sample was sent for analysis. The Public Analyst reported that it did not conform to the standards prescribed for turmeric powder and was therefore adulterated. A complaint was thereupon filed against the accused for an offence punishable Under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Act-The accused admitted the sale of the article. But he contended that the article was not sold by him as food but as meant for pooja. It is in evidence that the packets contained labels 'bearing the inscription "manjal Podi for Poojas". The Addl. Judicial 1st Class Magistrate observed that there was no evidence adduced by the prosecution that the article was kept for sale to be used as food. Placing reliance on the labels which are marked as Ext. p-8 series the court held that the accused was not guilty of the offence charged against him and therefore acquitted him Under Section 248 (1) of the Criminal P- C. The appeal is preferred against the above order of acquittal.

(2.) THE contention "put forward on behalf of the appellant-State is that turmeric powder or "manjalpodi" is an arti-1978 Cri, L. J. /34 IV cle of food and therefore the sale of adulterated turmeric powder is an offence under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, whether it was sold as food or otherwise. The accused's stand on the other hand is that turmeric powder, though used for preparation of food, is also used for other purposes like pooja and an offence under the Act is committed only if it is adulterated and sold as an article of food. When there is specific mention that the article exhibited for sale is meant for "pooja" no offence is committed by the vendor of the article.

(3.) THE question involved in the case is of considerable importance and there are no rulings on the point by this Court. Two points arise for consideration; (a) whether turmeric -powder is good for the purposes of the Act, (b) whether the sale of turmeric powder otherwise as food is an offence under the Act.