SUNDARESAN Vs. VISWANATHAN PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A vendor is prosecuted for selling mis branded food article to the Food Inspector. It is alleged that the vendor gave peas dhal to the food inspector as though the same was Toor dhal. The Trial Court acquitted the vendor and so the food inspector has filed this appeal challenging the acquittal.

(2.) The appellant Food Inspector visited the shop of the vendor (who is the respondent) on 21-2-1985 and took sample from dhal stored for sale in the shop. Appellant's case is that the respondent sold it as toor dhal. When one of the parts of the sample was analysed the Public Analyst reported that the sample consists "wholly of peas dhal". Ext. P2 is the cash voucher issued by the respondent in which the food article has been shown as toor dhal. The report of the Public Analyst shows that it was peas dhal. Thereupon the complaint was filed against the respondent for selling mis-branded food article, as defined in Clause (ix) of S.2 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

(3.) The respondent's case is that he sold only dhal which is peas dhal and that Ext. P2 voucher was written by him as dictated to him by the Food Inspector. Respondent's further case is that toor dhal was not available in his shop at all, and that he gave dhal to the Food Inspector from the stock purchased by him from his dealer as per Ext. D1 bill. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate held that the Food Inspector did not comply with S.10(7) of the Act, and there was violation of R.12 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. It was further held that R.17 was also contravened by the Food Inspector and that there is no evidence to show that the requirements in R.7 were complied with by the Public Analyst. The Trial Court did not accept the evidence that the respondent sold the food article representing the same to be toor dhal. On all those grounds the respondent was acquitted by the learned Magistrate.