LAWS(KER)-1987-2-25

ACHANKUNJU Vs. STATE OF KERALA

Decided On February 09, 1987
ACHANKUNJU Appellant
V/S
STATE OF KERALA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Accused in CC No. 32 of 1982 on the file of the Judicial I Class Magistrate, Punalur is the petitioner in Crl. RP No. 552 of 1983 and accused in CC No. 31 of 1982 before the same court is the petitioner in Crl. RP No. 399 of 1983. They were prosecuted by the Food Inspector, Punalur Circle for offences punishable under S.16(1)(c) and (d) for having contravened the provisions of S.10(1)(a) and (2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The learned Magistrate found both of them guilty. They were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs 1 000/ each and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one week each. Against the conviction and sentence in CC No. 32 of 1982 there was Crl. Appeal No. 40 of 1983 and against the conviction and sentence in CC No. 31 of 1982 there was Crl. Appeal No. 39 of 1983 before the Sessions Court, Quilon. Both the appeals were dismissed and therefore the accused have come up in revision.

(2.) The accused in both the cases are employers of Ayoor Ksheera Vyavasaya Cooperative Society No. Q-15-D. to C. No. 32 of 1982 the allegation was that the accused who is an employee of the society refused to sell milk and went away on a bicycle even though there was balance milk with him for gale to the Food Inspector. In CC No. 31 of 1982 the allegation is that the Food Inspector went to the society and demanded milk offering Form 6 notice, but without selling milk the accused closed the society and went away.

(3.) In both the cases Ext. P1 is common and it is the notification appointing the Food Inspector. Ext. P2 in CC No. 32 of 1982 is the mahazar prepared by the Food Inspector at the spot attested by pw. 3 who is an independent witness. pw.1 is the Food Inspector and Pw.2 is his peon. The independent witness examined as pw.3 also supported the prosecution case in chief-examination. But he gave a different version in cross examination and therefore in re-examination he was declared hostile and cross examined.