LAWS(KER)-1989-3-13

E V KUNHAMU Vs. FOOD INSPECTOR CANNANORE MUNICIPALITY

Decided On March 17, 1989
E.V.KUNHAMU Appellant
V/S
FOOD INSPECTOR, CANNANORE MUNICIPALITY Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Food Inspector, Cannanore Municipality (P.W. 1) filed a complaint against the revision petitioner (owner of shop by name "Anukul Mini Departmental Store" in Door No. KL 200(q) of Cannanore Municipality) as the second accused and his salesman as the first accused alleging that on 29-12-1981 at about 11 a.m. he visited the shop and after fulfilling all the legal formalities purchased 450 grams of cow's ghee for analysis from the first accused and sent it for analysis to the Public Analyst and the sample was found adulterated. Complaint was filed and other legal formalities complied with. First accused absconded. The case was proceeded against the second accused, who denied the incriminating evidence and stated that the sample was not taken from his shop. The trial Court and the appellate Court concurrently found in favour of the prosecution case and convicted the second accused under S.16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (for short 'the Act') and sent him to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default to undergo imprisonment for two month. Sankaran Nair, J. before whom the revision petition came up for hearing, adjourned the case to be heard by a Division Bench as it involved question of importance, namely, whether R.17(1)(b) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules (for short 'the Rules') is mandatory.

(2.) The two Courts below have concurrently accepted the prosecution case. There is no dispute before us that going by the report of the Public Analyst, which was not challenged by requesting the Court to send one of the remaining parts of the sample to the Director of Central Food Laboratory for analysis, the sample did not conform to the standards prescribed for ghee and also contained 87% hydrogenated vegetable oil that is vanaspati, and non-permitted colouring matter.

(3.) Learned counsel for the revision petitioner urged the following contentions before us :