KATHERINE ITTOOP Vs. THE FOOD INSPECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed for a judicial review of the order of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Wadakkanchery in framing charge against the Petitioner under the provisions of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, hereinafter called as "the Act", in C.C. No. 399 of 199L.

(2.) The facts, as placed by the counsel for the Petitioner, are as follows: The Food Inspector, Wadakkanchery visited the shop of one Raju who is the only accused in the original complaint filed by the Food Inspector. He was later on examined in the trial court as P.W. 1 on 17th November 1989. After disclosing his identity, he purchased 6 packets of coriander powder each weighing 100 gms. from the provision shop of Raju, the accused in the original complaint. After following the formalities as enjoined in the Act, a portion of the sample was sent to the test and report of the Analyst. As per the report of the Analyst, the edible powder does not contain the standard as prescribed in the Act. Therefore, he filed a complaint before the Magistrate against Raju.

(3.) When P.W. 1, the Food Inspector was examined in the court, through him, Ext. D-1 was marked. Ext. D-1 dated 3rd April 1990 is a licence issued to the present Petitioner for running a flour mill upto 31st March 1990 in Ollukkara Panchayath, Kalathode Desom at Ward No. II. After the examination of the witnession the complainant's side, Raju, the accused in the complaint submitted himself for examination as D.W. 1. Through D.W. 1, Exts. D-2 and D-3 were marked. Ext. D-2 dated 14th November 1989 is a cash voucher issued by the proprietor of Kuttanchery, (probably, it may be the name of the shop) High Road, Trissur. Ext. D-3 is a xerox copy of the label found in the sample packets seized by P.W. 1 from the provision shop of the accused Raju. That label contains the following: