FOOD INSPECTOR Vs. AMBUHUNJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Food Inspector, Cannanore Municipality has, with leave of this court, appealed against the decision of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tellicherry in C. C. 401 of 1972 acquitting the 3 accused in the case. The appellant here was the complainant in C. C. 401 of 1972. The complainant's case is that on 9 5 1972 at about 8 A. M he purchased from the first accused 650 ml of buffalo milk for sampling. At that time the first accused was taking the milk for sale to the Cannanore Cooperative Milk Supply Union. The milk belonged to the Thrikkaripur Cooperative Society of which second accused is said to be the Secretary and the 3rd accused is said to be the Chairman. The first accused was taking the milk on behalf of the Society to be delivered to the Milk Supply Union. The report of the Public Analyst showed that the sample did not conform to the standard prescribed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter called as the Act). The trial magistrate held that there was no evidence to show that accused 2 and 3 were respectively Secretary and Chairman of the Society. On that account accused 2 and 3 were acquitted. The first accused was acquitted on the ground that the specimen impression of the seal used to seal while sampling was not shown to have been forwarded to the Public Analyst separately as contemplated by R.18 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. It is this acquittal that is under challenge here.

(2.) Though complainant's case is that accused 2 and 3 represent the Thrikkaripur Cooperative Society as Secretary and Chairman respectively no material is shown in support of such a case. It is not the appellant's case that any material available has not been noticed by the learned trial Magistrate. I have necessarily to find that there is no case for implicating accused 2 and 3 in the absence of any evidence to substantiate the plea that they were respectively the Secretary and Chairman of the Society.

(3.) The case seriously urged by the appellant's counsel concerns the guilt of the first accused. According to learned counsel the evidence in the case establishes that the first accused was taking milk for sale to the Milk Supply Union, that the Food Inspector purchased 650 ml. of the milk for sampling in accordance with the provisions of the Act and Rules and that in view of the report of the Public Analyst finding that the milk was adulterated conviction of the first accused should in any event follow. But there seems to be a link missing in the evidence that may be necessary to implicate the first accused. The report of the Public Analyst which finds the milk to be adulterated can be depended upon only if the sample that was analysed is shown to be the sample despatched by the Food Inspector received by the Public Analyst in the same condition in which it was sent. To ensure this safeguards are envisaged in the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and Rules. Particular reference may be made in this context to R.17 and 18 of the said Rules. R.18 requires that a copy of the memorandum and specimen impression of the seal used to seal the packet be sent to the Public Analyst separately by registered post or delivered to him or to any person authorised by him. The memorandum mentioned in this rule is the memorandum referred to in R.17, namely that in Form VII. A similar copy of the memorandum is to be sent to the Public Analyst along with the sample. These are not to be sent together and evidently that is to avoid tampering. R 7 of the said rules obliges the Public Analyst, on receipt of package containing a sample for analysis, to compare the seals on the container and the outer cover with specimen impression received separately and note the condition of the seals thereon. This it a very important safeguard to an accused charged with an offence of adulteration. It is only the comparison of the seal on the container of the sample and the outer cover with the specimen impression of the seal received separately that could indicate that the seal found in tact on the container and the outer cover h really the seal affixed by the Food Inspector while sampling. If there is tampering the result of the analysis may not be sufficient to find that the material sold by the accused was adulterated.