FOOD INSPECTOR Vs. MOIDOO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) "New Mahe" is the name of a Panchayat comprising areas which once formed portions of two other Panchayats (Chokli and Kodiyeri). New Mahe was formed in 1982. The accused in this case is conducting a cool bar at New Mahe. On 14-1-1983, a food inspector (appointed by Government in 1978 for the local area called ''Tellicherry Circle" consisting of a few Panchayats including Chokli and Kodiyeri) took sample of ice candy, from the cool bar of the accused. The sample was found to be adulterated on analysis. Accused was convicted for the offence under S.16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (for short 'the Act') and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. The Sessions Judge, in appeal, took the view that the sampling is unsupportable in law since the food inspector who took the sample was not appointed to exercise powers in the New Mahe Panchayat. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence were set aside. Hence this appeal.

(2.) The food inspector (Pw. 1) purchased 750 grams, of ice candy from the accused. Form VI notice was given to him intimating that the sample would be sent for analysis. A cash receipt was issued by the, accused for the price paid by pw. 1. Sample was divided into three parts as provided by law and Ext. P4 mahazar was drawn up by pw. 1 which was signed by two witnesses. When one of the parts of the sample was analysed by the Public Analyst, it was revealed that the sample did not conform to the standard prescribed for ice candy and it contained artificial sweetener saccharine and dulcin. During trial, one of the other parts of the sample was sent to the Director of the Central Food Laboratory, at the instance of the accused. Ext. P25 is the certificate of analysis issued by the Director of Central Food Laboratory. It shows that the sample contained artificial sweetener identified as saccharine.

(3.) Learned Sessions Judge accepted the contention that Pw. 1 was incompetent to take sample from the cool bar of the accused situate in New Mani Panchayat although the Sessions Judge repelled various other contentions raised by the accused. The conviction and sentence were set aside only on the ground of want of competence of the food inspector to take sample and to initiate prosecution against the accused since Pw. 1 was not appointed to exercise jurisdiction in New Mahe Panchayat.