FOOD INSPECTOR Vs. JAYACHANDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Three persons were prosecuted for the offence under S.16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short 'the Act'), and all of them were acquitted by the trial Magistrate. Hence this appeal by the Food Inspector-complainant.

(2.) On 25-3-1983, a Food Inspector purchased three bottles of synthetic vinegar from the third accused, who was salesman under second accused in a shop called ''National Baking Company". They were sealed bottles and each of them contained identical label declaration. Hence each bottle was treated as part of the sample. The Food Inspector wrapped the bottles separately in accordance with the procedure laid down. When Public Analyst analysed one part of the sample, it was found adulterated as it was not in conformity with the standard prescribed for the article. Second accused informed the Food Inspector that the bottles of synthetic vinegar were purchased by him from the first accused who was proprietor of "Jai Medical Laboratory'', Pazhayannur (Trichur) as per Ext. P15 cash bill dated 27-1-1983. Hence a complaint was filed against the three accused.

(3.) The learned Magistrate treated Ext. P15 as a warranty as per proviso to S.14 of the Act. On the strength of that document alone, the trial Magistrate rushed to the conclusion that "A2 and A3 are clearly protected under S.14 and S.19(2) of the Act". He further found that there is no evidence as against the first accused, apart from the oral evidence of Pw.l. to show that he is the proprietor of Jai Medical Laboratory. Alternatively, the Magistrate held that even if first accused is the proprietor of the said laboratory ''it cannot be presumed for a moment that he is the person responsible for the manufacture and sale of synthetic vinegar in question". Hence he acquitted all the accused.