MUHAMMED KUNHI Vs. FOOD INSPECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners father and son respectively, stand convicted for offences punishable under S.16(1)(a)(I)(II) read with S.2(1a)(b) and (m) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (Central Act 37 of 1954 as amended by Act 34 of 1976, and R.5, Appendix B (A. 14) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. PW 2, Food Inspector purchased tea dust from 2nd petitioner. A sample of this was sent for analysis and was found to be adulterated. On this evidence, Courts below found petitioners guilty as charged.

(2.) Learned counsel for petitioners contended that trial was without jurisdiction, for, according to him, the Magistrate of First Class, who tried the case, or for that matter, any other First Class Magistrate is not empowered under S.16(A) of the Act, to try such offences 'in a summary way'. This contention must fail because, such a notification has been issued. It reads as under:

(3.) Learned counsel then contended that S.10(7) was violated, in that no independent witness was called, Courts below found that there was no violation of the Section. There is no factual basis, to suggest violation of S.10(7). Besides, in the light of decisions of this court, the Food Inspector is presumed to have performed his official duties properly, unless otherwise shown. It is not shown otherwise.