FOOD INSPECTOR Vs. MATHEW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent was a Clerk attached to a tea factory. On 23-5-1984, a Food Inspector visited the factory and took sample from "tea dust" stored in the factory. Respondent received the price from the Food Inspector and issued a cash receipt. When one part of the sample was analysed by the Public Analyst, it was found to be adulterated as it did not conform to the standards prescribed, and the tea dust contained cashew nut endocarp besides structures of tea leaves. Respondent as well as the owner of the tea factory were prosecuted for the offence under S.16(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (for short 'the Act'). During trial, the owner of the tea factory died and hence prosecution continued against the respondent alone. One of the other parts of the sample was sent to the Director of Central Food Laboratory on the request of the respondent. The certificate issued by the said Director also shows that the sample contained structures of tea leaves and cashewnut endocarp, besides non conformity with ' the standards prescribed for tea. However, the trial Magistrate acquitted the respondent mainly on the ground that the tea dust was in unfinished stage in the factory when the food inspector took the sample therefrom. Food Inspector preferred this appeal against the said order of acquittal.

(2.) Learned Public Prosecutor contended that the respondent cannot escape from punishment as the tea dust was sold by him to the Food Inspector. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, it is immaterial that the tea dust was not in finished stage and it was the duty of the respondent to appraise the Food Inspector of the non saleable condition of the food article. In the Trial Court, it was contended by the respondent that he had represented to the Food Inspector at the initial stage itself that finished product was not available for sale in the factory, but ignoring the aforesaid representation the Food Inspector took tea dust from one of the gunny bags kept in the working hall of the factory and that he received the price offered since the Food Inspector ordered him to do so. The owner of the factory was not present when the Food Inspector visited the factory. He also contended that the tea dust, after completing the process of manufacture, would be stored in "bonded room" of the factory.

(3.) The respondent got himself examined as a defence witness (D. W. 4) and has deposed to the aforesaid facts. The respondent also examined the Inspector of Central Excise (having jurisdiction over this tea factory) as D.W.1 to prove that storage in the working hall was only in the course of the usual process of manufacture. He said that it was in unfinished stage that tea dust was stored in working hall and later removed to the grading room find finally removed to the bonded room. D.W. 1 has further stated that tea dust in finished stage was kept in the bonded room of the factory. He agreed with the defence case that the factory concerned was constructed in accordance with Ext. D1 plan which shows the existence of a working hall, grading room and bonded room. Learned Magistrate accepted the defence evidence and found that the tea dust was taken by the Food Inspector from one of the gunny bags kept in the working hall and that the tea dust was then in unfinished stage. The said finding of fact is not challenged by the Public Prosecutor. The said finding is based on evidence in this case and there is no reason to disturb the said finding.