FOOD INSPECTOR GURUVAYOOR Vs. GOPALAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent, a boy aged 15, has been acquitted by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kunnamkulam of an offence under S.16(1)(a)(i) read with S.7(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. And the Food Inspector has filed the appeal.

(2.) One of the objections taken before the Magistrate on behalf of the respondent was that he was a mere carrier of the milk sent by his father and therefore, was not liable to be convicted. Two decisions were also cited before the Magistrate: Krishnan v. Municipality of Cannanore 1960 KLT 773 and Public Prosecutor v. Y. Pulla Reddy 1966 CriLJ 1122 . In the first case the accused was a servant and he was not convicted. In the second case the accused was a mere carrier and he was also not convicted. The Magistrate says that both these decisions do not apply, because the accused in the present case was the son of the vendor of the milk and as such, he had also some interest in the sale, so that he might be convicted. The counsel of the respondent points out fairly enough that even a servant might be convicted. However, it is not necessary for me to say anything on that question in this case. There cannot be any doubt that a mere carrier cannot be convicted. In this case, it is difficult to hold that a boy of 15, who was asked by his father to carry a bottle of milk and give it to another, can be said to be anybody other than a carrier. Therefore, the view of the Magistrate that the boy had some interest in the sale and might also be convicted is erroneous.

(3.) The ground on which the Magistrate acquitted the respondent may now be considered. The Food Inspector produced a notification (Ex P-9) dated 3-2-1966 and another notification (Ext. P-11) dated 23-9-1967. He also produced two other notifications, Ext. P-10 dated 1-1-1963 under S.2and 9 of the Act declaring the Guruvayoor Township area as a local area and appointing the Health Inspector of Guruvayoor Township as the Food Inspector and Ext. P-8 dated 3 2 1966 authorising the Food Inspector to institute prosecutions under the Food Adulteration Act. (I find that Ext. P-8 is only a copy of Ext. P-9.). Under Ext. P-11 the appellant (the particular officer) was appointed Health Inspector of the Township by the Executive Officer; and the order also said that the officer would work as the Food Inspector. The Magistrate says that this order will not enable the appellant to be the Food Inspector, because the order was not by the State Government or the Central Government. May be so. But, Ext. P-10 says that the Health Inspector of Guruvayoor Township will be a Food Inspector; and this notification is by the State Government. The reasoning of the Magistrate appearing hereunder does not appear to be correct. This is what he says: