HARISANKAR Vs. FOOD INSPECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Trial Court and the appellate court have concurrently found the revision petitioner (second accused) guilty under S.7(i) read with S.16(l)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (for short 'the Act') and R.44A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules (for short 'the Rules'). He has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. The first accused was likewise convicted and sentenced by the Trial Court, but the same has been set aside by the appellate court. Second Accused being aggrieved has filed this revision petition.

(2.) The Food Inspector, Alleppey Municipality filed a complaint against the two accused, father and son, alleging that on 12-12-1977 he visited the shop of which first accused is the licensee, found second accused conducting the business in the shop and after observing the legal formalities purchased 750 grams of peas dhall but of the larger stock exhibited for sale in the premises and put each part of the sample in a polythene bag or cover and the same on analysis was found to contain 82% kesari dhall and therefore adulterated. The Food Inspector was examined as P. W. 1. Two attestors to Ext. P3 mahazar were examined as P.Ws 2 and 3, but they turned hostile. Acting on the evidence of P. W. 1 and partially on the evidence of P. W. 2 and relying on Ext. P5 report of the Public Analyst, the two courts below held the second accused guilty of selling adulterated peas dhall. We are not concerned with the acquittal of the first accused, however wrong it may be.

(3.) Learned counsel for the revision petitioner raised two contentions before us. First is that in sampling the food article, P. W. 1 violated R.14 of the Rules inasmuch as the three equal parts of the sample were put in three polythene covers and not in bottles or jars and that has prejudiced the revision petitioner. Second contention is that the revision petitioner has nothing to do with the business and therefore he is not criminally liable.