GEORGE JOSEPH Vs. FOOD INSPECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is the accused in S. T. 125/1986 on the file of First Class Magistrate's Court, Moovattupuzha. He was prosecuted by Food Inspector for offence punishable under the provisions of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for having sold sesame oil which was found to be adulterated on analysis. The report submitted by the Public Analyst is Form No. III is dated 16-7-1986. On the application of the accused another sample taken by the Food Inspector was sent to the Central Food Laboratory. The Director of Central Food Laboratory issued certificate dated 16-12-1986 in Form II. While examining Dw-1, Sri Nandakumar, Associate Professor in Chemistry, attached to the Kerala Agricultural University, the accused wanted to refer to the Public Analyst's report and to compare the same with the certificate issued by the Director of Central Food Laboratory to explain the differences on account of the delay caused in getting the sample analysed. The Assistant Public Prosecutor objected to the said course. He contended that when the certificate in Form II has been received the Public Analyst's report in Form III cannot be referred to for any purpose. This objection was heard and the learned Magistrate passed a detailed order on 24-3-1988. That order states:

(2.) S.13(3) of the Act reads:

(3.) The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Charanji Lal v. State of Punjab (1983 FAJ 435) argued that the view taken by the Larger Bench in the decision referred to earlier requires reconsideration. In that case. Food Inspector purchased 750 grams of 'Katcha Khoya' for analysis. Public Analyst on 3-2-1978 found the sample to be adulterated with sesame oil (til oil) besides being insect infested. The fat content of the sample was reported to be 25 per cent. Accused then exercised his right under S.13(2) of the Act. The Director of Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta, by letter dated 2-5-1978 intimated that the sample was decomposed and therefore unfit for analysis and stated that the other sample may be sent to him immediately. On 10-11-1978 the learned Magistrate forwarded the remaining part of the sample to the Director of Central Food Laboratory, Ghaziabad. The Certificate of the Director of the Laboratory, Ghaziabad, dated 7-12-1978, showed that the sample was adulterated. Fat content was stated to be 33.12 per cent with a note that "the extracted fat of 20.37 per cent did not comply with the standard of milk for the State of Punjab." The prosecution then applied to Court for getting a clarification from the Director of the Central Food Laboratory, Ghaziabad, as the report was not clear. This prayer was rejected. Their Lordships, after observing, "True it is, under proviso to sub-s.(5) of S.13 of the Act. the certificate of the Director. Central Food Laboratory, Ghaziabad. is final and conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein" remanded the case to the High Court stating: