RAGHAVAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was found guilty of offences under S.2(ix)(c) and S.7(2) read with S.16(1)(a)(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. On 19-2-81, at or about 1.15p.m. Pw.4 visited the shop of the petitioner, and after disclosing his identity, demanded 375 grams of groundnut oil and purchased it. It was duly sampled and analysed. Ext. P2 report of the Analyst shows that the sample analysed was of palmolein oil, and not groundnut oil. Acting on this evidence, the Magistrate below found that the article sold was misbranded and the offence proved. Appeal was unsuccessful.

(2.) Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the Food Inspector pointed out at a tin and asked for the sample, presuming it to be groundnut oil and that the petitioner did not sell palmolein for groundnut oil. There is difficulty in accepting the submission because, the evidence of Pw.4 is that he asked for groundnut oil. though he says he pointed at a tin. This is made clear in answer to a question in cross examination. It cannot be said that concurrent finding made by the courts below on this aspect is vitiated by any illegality or impropriety.

(3.) Learned counsel contended that this is not a case of misbranding because, what was sold was also a wholesome article of food. Notwithstanding the fact that an article or food is wholesome, misbranding can arise having regard to the language of S.2(ix)(c). S.2(ix)(a) requires intention to deceive and S.2(ix)(b) requires a false statement regarding the product if the section is to be attracted. But, S.2(ix)(c) under which the petitioner is found guilty is attracted if the article is sold by a name, which belongs to another article of food. No particular intention is required to invite the offence under S.2(ix)(c). It is not possible to read the element of intention into the section,