FOOD INSPECTOR PALGHAT Vs. RATNASWAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these fourt appeals have been filed against the acquittal of the accused in four food adulteration cases, and the common legal question justifies their consideration together in this consolidated judgment.

(2.) The Food Inspector of Palghat Municipality purchased 750 m.l. each of cow's milk from the four accused persons. He prepared samples and one sample each was sent for analysis, and the report of the Local Health Authority showed that the milk did not conform to the standard prescribed under the Food Adulteration Rules and therefore adulterated. Prosecution was launched against the accused. They had not chosen to send the sample for analysis by the Central Food Laboratory. Even though the accused had not set up any specific defence, from the tenor of cross examination of Pw. 1 it would appear that the accused was carrying the milk not for the purpose of sale and that the accused did not know Malayalam, and the Food Inspector bad not taken sample strictly in accordance with the provisions of Food Adulteration Act and the Rules framed thereunder.

(3.) In all theses cases 2 witnesses each were examined on the side of the prosecution. They were Food Inspector and Public Analyst respectively. Pw.1, the Food Inspector, stated that he bad taken the sample from the accused after serving form VI notice and that the sample was prepared in accordance with the Food Adulteration Rules and that be had also prepared a mahazar. Pw. 2, the Public Analyst, was examined to prove that seal of the packet was intact. Probably taking into consideration of the fact that the trial of the cases was summary nature, the evidence has been recorded very briefly. Oh the basis of this evidence the learned Magistrate has chosen to acquit the accused for two reasons. Firstly it was held that the accused were persons hailing from Tamil Nadu and that they did not know Malayalam and it was the duty of the Food Inspector to translate all the documents into a language known to the accused before obtaining their acknowledgment of the notice, and all these accused were not aware of the contents of the documents prepared by the Food Inspector. Secondly it has been held by the Magistrate that the milk was being carried in a can from the bus-stop and carrying milk in a can will not prove that the accused were selling or stocking milk for sale. Probably the Magistrate was of the opinion that the purchase of milk by the Food Inspector during this transit would not amount to sale.