FOOD INSPECTOR Vs. SUKUMARAN NAIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Violation of R.18 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules and refusal of opportunity to the vendor to sell representative sample of ice-cream to the Food Inspector are the only reasons for the acquittal against which the Food Inspector has come up in appeal. Those are the only reasons urged before me also. Hence the appeal must stand or fall on those grounds alone and nothing more need be considered.

(2.) What R.18 enjoins is that a copy of the memorandum and a specimen impression of the seal used to seal the packet shall be sent to the Public Analyst separately by registered post or delivered to him or to any person authorised by him. That only means that whatever be the method, those two items alone should reach the Public Analyst separately. That is only one of the several safeguards provided under the Act and Rules to ensure that there is no tampering with the sample which has to be analysed. In this case it is not necessary to decide whether the rule is mandatory or whether its violation is fatal and operate as a technical defence by itself. Such a question may arise only if the Rule is seen violated.

(3.) While examined as PW. 1 the Food Inspector categorically said that the Rule was complied with and he sent a copy of the memorandum and a specimen impression of the seal to seal the packet in a separate cover to the Public Analyst by registered post. One specimen impression of the seal was produced and proved by him as Ext. P7. He said that on that day he took action in some other cases also and there is only one postal receipt for having sent some of those items including the 'specimen impression of the Seal and copy of the memorandum in this case sent separately. In the complaint and in the box he said so and proved Ext. P8 as the true copy of the postal receipt certified by him. It is true that this evidence was challenged in cross examination. He said that the original of Ext. P8 was produced by him in S.T. 13 of 1985 filed by him before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chengannur. This version he mentioned in the complaint also. He was only discharging an official duty. Normally no court will disbelieve him in that respect by a fair assessment of the evidence. When the correctness of the true copy is capable of verification by the original which itself is before another court, nobody could think that the Food Inspector who was discharging only an official duty will run the risk of filing a wrong copy with his certification. The attitude of the Magistrate has not in any way advanced the cause of justice.