FOOD INSPECTOR Vs. MOOSAKOYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Food Inspector, Corporation of Calicut, is the appellant. Appeal is against the acquittal of the respondent by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kozhikode in S. T. No. 7 of 1986. Prosecution is for having committed an offence punishable under section 16(1)(a)(i) and (ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act in having contravened the provisions of section 7 thereof.

(2.) Sample involved is ragi. Purchase and sampling were at about 12 Noon on 9.12 1985. As per the standard fixed in Appendix B Item A.18.06, food grains should not contain inorganic matter in excess of 1% by weight. Ext. P 9 report of the Public Analyst was superseded on the application of the respondent by Ext. P 14 certificate of the Director of Central Food Laboratory. Ext. P 14 shows that inorganic matter is 7.64% by weight. It is true that even though the permitted organic matter is upto 3% the sample contained only 0.97% which is below the permissible maximum limit. At the same time, rodent excreta, which should not exceed 5 pieces per kilogram, was found in Ext.P 14 to be 12.1 pieces per kijogram. On these two counts, the same was found adulterated in the sense that it was below the prescribed standard for food-grains. There was no dispute before me at the time of arguments that the sample is actually adulterated.

(3.) So also, regarding the observance of the formalities in purchase, sampling, despatch, analysis, etc., there was no argument of any non-compliance or irregularity in compliance. The only argument advanced was that the appellant, Food Inspector, did not properly comply with the provisions of section 10(7) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.