KRISHNAN Vs. FOOD INSPECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) First accused in S.T. No. 223/1982 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Taliparamba, is the petitioner in Crl R. P. 210/1986. Crl R.P. 211/1986 is filed by the 2nd accused in the said case.

(2.) Petitioners were charged with offence under S.2 (ia) (m) read with S.7 (1) and 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The allegations made by the prosecution are as follows: Petitioner in R.P. 210/1986 was the licensee and the proprietor of Dwaraka Restaurant situated in Payyannur Bazar. The petitioner in R.P. 211/1986 was the Manager and Salesman of the said restaurant. The Food Inspector inspected the said restaurant at about 9.15 AM on 10-5-1982. He asked for curd exposed in the restaurant for sale. After revealing his identity he purchased 600 gms of curd from the petitioner in R.P. 211 of 1986 for analysis. He duly sampled the article of food so purchased. One sample was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis according to the rules and the remaining two parts were sent to the Local (Health) Authority. The Public Analyst reported that the sample of curd was adulterated. On receipt of that report prosecution was launched and notices under S.13 (2) of the Act were sent to the petitioners. The petitioners did not get one of the samples analysed by the Director of Central Food Laboratory.

(3.) To prove the offences the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 5 and got marked Exts. P1 to P24. On the side of the defence, DW-1 was examined and Ext. Dl was marked. After considering the above evidence the learned Magistrate found the petitioners guilty of the offences charged against them and convicted them there-under. They were accordingly sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months each and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/ each and in default of payment of fine they were directed to suffer simple imprisonment for one month each. This conviction and sentence were challenged before the lower appellate court. That court confirmed the conviction and sentence and dismissed the appeal. Hence these Revision Petitions.