FOOD INSPECTOR MUNICIPAL COUNCIL ALLEPPY Vs. KARUPPAIYA NADAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed with the sanction of this Court under S.417(3), Criminal Procedure Code against the order of acquittal by the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Alleppey made in C, C. 104/1937 on his tile. In that case the Food Inspector of Alleppey Municipal Council preferred a complaint against the accused, the respondent herein, under S.2, 7(i) and 16(1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (Central Act 37 of 1954). The facts alleged in the complaint were that the accused, a dealer in black-gram flour and groundnuts was found to have stored and exposed for sale in his shop at Puthenangadi, Alleppey, about 48 maunds of some article purporting to be black-gram flour and that on suspicion the complainant purchased for sample 1 1/2 Lbs, from one among the 6 bags found there and that on chemical analysis by the public Analyst the sample purchased was found to contain 95.9 per cent Calcium Carbonate and 3.6 per cent sand with no black-gram flour in it at all. Besides the sample purchased by him the complainant also took possession of all the 6 bags found there supposed to contain black-gram flour. The learned Sub Divisional Magistrate found that the sample was purchased by the complainant from the accused's shop and that the 6 bags alleged to have been taken into custody were also taken from there. His further finding however was the sample or the other remaining 6 bags did not constitute food and there- fore no prosecution under S.7(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act for selling or storing adulterated food would lie against the accused. The accused was therefore acquitted. Hence this appeal by the complainant, the Food Inspector.

(2.) The prosecution examined 4 witnesses including the complainant (PW 1) to prove its case and filed Exts. P1 to P.6. PWs 2 to 4 are persons who were present at the time the articles were-taken into custody and they have all attested the Mahazar Ext. P3. Ext. P2 is the intimation given by the complainant to the accused regarding the purpose of taking the sample, Ext. P4 is the report of the Public Analyst, Ext. P1 is the Municipal Commissioner's authorisation to the complainant to file the case, Ext. P5 is a notice accepted by the accused and Ext. P6, the bill for the sale of 1 1/2 Lbs. of black-gram (the sample) by the accused. The defence examined 2 witnesses of whom DW 2 was given up as hostile and DW 1, a Mill employee, gave evidence to the effect that the accused used to get black-gram polished in his employer's place and in polishing Mack-gram powered granite was used.

(3.) The lower court formulated 3 points as arising for decision and they were: (1) Whether the black-gram flour was taken from the shop of the accused; (2) Whether it was adulterated; and (3) What is that adequate punishment to be awarded to the accused. On point (1) it said : The evidence of PWs 1 to 4 and the exhibits filed clearly shows that the article was seized from the shop of accused. Nothing has been brought out in cross examination to discredit the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. Exts. P2, P3 and P5 are signed by the accused thereby admitting the contents therein. Ext. P6 is the bill passed on to PW 1 for purchase of samples. I therefore find this point! in favour of the prosecution." On point (2) its observation were:-- "From Ext. P4, the certificate of the Analyst, it is clear that the sample contained' no organic matter at all instead it contained 95.9 per cent Calcium Carbonate and 3.6 per cent of sand. Hence it cannot be classified under adulterated food for it is no food at all. It is totally inorganic matter. I therefore find this point in favour of the defence." In view of the decision on point (2) Point (3) did not arise for consideration and the accused was acquitted.