COROMANDAL DISTRIBUTORS Vs. FOOD INSPECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners are accused Nos. 5 and 6 in S.T. No. 20 of 1992 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, (Mobile) Alappuzha. The first respondent is the Food Inspector attached to the Alappuzha Municipality. The second respondent is the Proprietor of a Bakery at Alappuzha, from whom the first respondent purchased 900 grams of curry powder on 31.3.1989. The curry powder was sent for analysis. The report of the public analyst goes to show that it does not conform to the standard prescribed for curry powder under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and Rules. Annexure - A is the report of the analyst. Respondents 3 to 5 were made coaccused in the case on the allegation that the second respondent purchased the curry powder from them, as per bill dated 3.12.1988. Annexure B is the copy of complaint filed by the first respondent Food Inspector. The present petitioners were impleaded as per order dated 22.4.1991 on Annexure C petition as they were alleged to be the manufacturers of the curry powder. In pursuance of the summons, the petitioners appeared before the Court on 30.2.1992 and pleaded not guilty. They parted with the curry powder in December, 1988.

(2.) The petitioners filed a petition to send the second sample for analysis to the Central Food Laboratory, Pune. Annexure D is the report, which goes to show that the sample is completely deteriorated in condition, having off colour and hence it is not fit for analysis. Therefore, the learned Magistrate suo motu sent the third sample to the Central Food Laboratory, Pune for analysis. That was tested. Annexure - E is the report. This goes to show that the moisture content is 25.5%. According to the Director, the sample does not conform to the standards of curry powder as per PFA Rules, 1955. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the action of the learned Magistrate in proceeding with the case against them is not legal. The Director of Central Food Laboratory has certified that the sample sent to him was decomposed and unfit for examination. It is a known fact that the curry powder is subject to speedy decay and decomposition. Two parts of the sample have been sent to the court and out of this only one part was sent to the Director, Central Food Laboratory. Under sub-s. (2C) of S.13 of the Act, the Court shall as soon as practicable return the remaining part of the Local (Health) Authority and that authority shall destroy that part after the certificate from the Director of Central Food Laboratory has been received by the Court. But the proviso to this section is to be following effect:

(3.) The question is whether the sample decomposed can be said to be damaged or lost.