KRISHNAN Vs. FOOD INSPECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE accused was prosecuted for offences under S. 16 (1) (a) (i), 7 (i) and 2 (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and rules framed thereunder. He has been convicted by the trial court and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a further period of four months. THE appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed by the Sessions Court.

(2.) THE case against the accused was that on 23-2-1974 he had come to the tea-shop of pw. 2, Ibrayi, with an aluminium can containing buffalo milk for sale, which, on analysis was found to contain 31 per cent of added water and as such adulterated.

(3.) THE counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the mandatory provision concerning the service of Form VI notice has not been complied in the present case. No doubt the accused did not accept form VI notice. As a matter of fact he denies the very fact of taking the sample from him. THE question is whether the relevant provisions with respect to the service of Form VI notice could be deemed to have been complied with on a consideration of the evidence on record. THE prosecution case that though Form vi notice was sought to be served on the accused, he refused to accept it is spoken to by pw. 1, the Food Inspector and pw. 3, Janardhanan who is a subordinate of pw. 1. THE counsel for the petitioner submitted that in as much as the independent witness, pw. 2, the brother of the shop-keeper, did not support the prosecution case, it must be taken that the alleged refusal on the part of the petitioner to accept notice has not been established. In this connection it has to be noticed that pw. 2 who had signed Ext. P2 mahazar turned hostile, and had stated in court that he signed Ext. P2 mahazar without reading it. In these circumstances there is absolutely no reason why the evidence of pws. 1 and 3 should not be believed with respect to the alleged refusal to receive form VI notice by the petitioner, I, therefore, reject the contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner with respect to this point. THE contention with respect to the non-receipt of the payment for the sample taken also has to be rejected for the same reasons,