P RAVEENDRAN Vs. A JAYKUMAR FOOD INSPECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The main question urged for a decision in this revision is whether an article of food can be said to be adulterated even if other edible seeds found in it are not proved to be deleterious to health.

(2.) Petitioner before me stands convicted of offences punishable under Sections 2(i-a) (m) and 7(i) read with 16(1)(a)(i), (ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (for short, "the Act") and Rule A-05.09 of Appendix B of the Food Adulteration Rules (for short, "the Rules") and sentenced to undergo imprisonment and payment of fine. Case is that on 26.6.1991 at about 1.00 p.m. the Food Inspector purchased 450 gms of cumin seed from petitioner at Shop No. KP- 11/86. Food Inspector after complying with the formalities sent one of the sample parts to the Public Analyst who reported that the same did not conform to the standards prescribed for cumin seed. Prosecution was launched on the basis of the report. On the request of petitioner the second part of the sample was sent to the Central Food Laboratory (for short "the CFL") for examination. Exhibit CI is the report of CFL where it is stated that the sample contained edible seeds (dill seed) other than cumin seed more than 5% and thus the sample did not conform to the prescribed standard. Courts below found that petitioner committed the offence attributed to him. It is contended in this revision that so far as it is not shown that other edible seeds (dill seed) is deleterious to health, it cannot be said that the sample of cumin seed was 'adulterated'. Learned counsel placed reliance on a decision of the Orissa High Court in Akrura Pradhan v. State of Orissa, 1995 FAJ 409. Further contention is that contents of Ext.C1, report of the CFL were not put to the petitioner when questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, "the Code") and hence Ext.C1 cannot be used as evidence against the petitioner. Reliance is placed on the decisions in Janardhanan v. State of Kerala,1978 KerLT 546, State of Maharashtra v. Sukhdeo Singh, 1992 AIR(SC) 2100 and Ram Niwas v. State, 1995 CrLJ 3491. It is also argued that prosecution is vitiated as Rule 14 of the Rules is violated.

(3.) That, petitioner sold cumin seed to the Food Inspector on the relevant day and time is proved by evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and Exts.P2 to P5. Courts below have accepted that evidence and I do not find reason to interfere with that in this revision.