FOOD INSPECTOR PALAKKAD Vs. SURESH MENON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal, the Food Inspector, Palakkad Municipality challenges the order of acquittal passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palakkad in S.T. No. 49 of 1991. Respondents 1 to 4 herein were acquitted of the offences under Section 2(ia) (m); 7(i)(v) and and Appendix B-A.11.02.15 read with Section 16(1)(a)(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.

(2.) The following facts are admitted:- On 20.12.1990, at about 3.30 p.m., the Food Inspector visited the Triveni Department Store, Puthur Road, Palakkad and purchased from A1 salesman three packets of Anikspray dried skimmed milk powder each weighing 100 grams. A2 is the distributor from whom A1 had purchased the skimmed milk as per Ext.D1 cash bill. A4 is the company of which A2 is the distributor. A3 is the nominee of the company. The Food Inspector (examined as PW1) took each packets as parts of sample and wrapped and sealed each packets. One part of the sample was forwarded to the Public Analyst who as per Ext.P13 report dated 05.02.1991 found the sample adulterated since the moisture content was found to be 5.15%, which is above the limit of 5% fixed under standard A11.02.15 of Appendix B of the Food Adulteration Rules as it stood then. The Public Analyst also found the solubility of the sample at 95.4% as against the minimum standard of 98.5 then fixed.

(3.) The Food Inspector was examined as PW1 during trial. PW2 is the independent witness who supported the prosecution. PW3 is the local Health Authority. The Public Analyst was examined on the side of the prosecution as PW4. PW4 gave evidence without reference to the laboratory records. Subsequently, after the examination of the accused under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C, the accused adduced defence evidence by examining the very same public analyst as DW1 who was summoned to produce the laboratory records. Instead of permitting the accused to summon PW4 again and cross-examine him, the court below erred in allowing the accused to examine PW4 as DW1 on the defence side. [vide State of M.P v. Badri Yadav, 2006 AIR(SC) 1769 However, the above procedure has not affected the case in any manner. DW1 produced the work sheet which was marked as Ext.D2. The accused also examined the former Director of the Central Food Laboratory as DW2.