FOOD INSPECTOR Vs. NOOK MOHAMMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A grocery shop owner was prosecuted for violations of the provisions of S.7 (i) and (iii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and R.50 (1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules punishable under S.16 (1) (a) (i) and (ii) of the Act. Sample involved is cumin. Ext. P9 report of analysis showed that it does not conform to the standard and is therefore adulterated. The further accusation is that he had no licence. The Magistrate acquitted the accused. Complainant, Food Inspector, has come up in appeal.

(2.) As PW 1, the appellant has spoken to the various formalities observed by him in the matter of purchase, sampling and forwarding. The necessary documents were also produced and proved. His peon, examined as PW 2, was also present when action was taken. He supported PW 1. PW 3 is the present Executive Officer of the Panchayat. He was not the officer at the time when action was taken. He proved Exts. P11 and P12 produced from his office to show that the respondent had no licence at the time when action was taken. Action was taken at 11 A. M on 4-11-1981. Ext P12 is the carbon copy of the licence issued to the respondent. It was valid only upto 31-3-1981. Ext. P11 is the next application filed by the respondent for renewal of licence. It was only on 5-11-1981 which is after PW 1 has taken action. Respondent has not produced any record to show that he had licence on 4-11-1981. PW 4 is the District Food Inspector who is also the Local Health Authority. He also proved that the required formalities were complied with.

(3.) It appears that before the learned Magistrate the contentions raised on behalf of the respondent were: