RAVEENDRAN Vs. FOOD INSPECTOR PINARAYI PANCHAYAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the second accused in a case charged by the Food Inspector, Pinarayi Panchayat in Cannanore District. Pw. 2, the Food Inspector visited the grocery shop building No. W. V. 64A of the Pinarayi Panchayat at about 12-15 P M. on 7-8-1972 The petitioner, according to the complainant, was conducting sales in the shop. Pw. 2 purchased 750 grams of toor dhall for purposes of sampling after following the formalities prescribed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the Rules thereunder. The sample was divided into three equal parts and one portion of the same was sent to the Public Analyst, Trivandrum for analysis. The Public Analyst sent a report which is marked as Ext. P5 in the case stating that the sample consisted wholly of lac dhall otherwise known as Kesari dhall as seen from the microscopic examination. The sample also gave a positive test for B. O. A. A which is a characteristic amino acid present in kesari dhall. The sale of kesari dhall under any description is prohibited on account of the tact that its consumption is injurious to public health. Relying on the report, a complaint was filed by Pw. 4, the then Food Inspector against one Kumaran, stated to be the licensee of the shop as the first accused and the petitioner as the second accused. The Trial Court acquitted the first accused on the ground that there was no proof to show that he had any active part in the transaction and that the conduct of the grocery shop was entrust d to the second accused revision petitioner. The court held that the petitioner was guilty of an offence punishable under S.16(1)(a)(i) read with S.7(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment till the rising of the court and a fine of Rs. 2000/-. In default of payment of fine, he is to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. There was an appeal before the Sessions Judge, Tellicherry. The Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction and sentence. The revision petition is filed against the above conviction and sentence.

(2.) The defence put forward by the revision petitioner both in the Trial Court and in the appellate court was one of denial of bis status as the salesman of the shop. The petitioner also contended that there was no proper evidence to prove the sampling by pw 2. The contention of the petitioner is that he had nothing to do with the shop mentioned and that he was never a salesman there. According to him, during the relevant period, he was a beedi roller in the Dinesh Beedi Company. He examined Dw. 1, who is stated to be a maistry of the Dinesh Beedi Company and also produced Ext. D1 in order to show that he was working as a beedi roller for the company on the relevant date. According to Dw. 1, it was not open to an employee of the company to undertake any other extra work. Both the Trial Court and the appellate court did not act upon the evidence of Dw. 1 or on Ext. D1. The court held the evidence to be unreliable. There is no reason for interference with the finding.

(3.) It is noted that there has been a deliberate attempt by the petitioner to change his signature from what it was during the date of sale. In the manazar prepared Pw. 2, he has signed after writing down his name in English. In the vakkalath filed by him before the Trial Court also, the signature is put after writing down his name in English. There is close resemblance between the name written in the mahazar and that written by him in the vakkalth, which clearly indicates that the person who was present at the time when Pw.2 is alleged to have taken the sample and the person who signed in the vakkalath are one and the same. But curiously enough, in the later papers especially in the statement under S.342 Cr. P. C., he has written his name in Malayalam followed by a signature. The signature is nowhere consistent and, therefore, the identity has to be drawn from the name preceding the signature.