FOOD INSPECTOR MUYATTUPUZHA MUNICIPALITY Vs. V H KAMATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A Food Inspector, attached to the Vigilance Squad, purchased 450 grams of Coriander Whole from a shop keeper on 29-9-1984. The food article was divided into three equal parts following the procedure prescribed by law. When one part of the sample was analysed by the Public Analyst, it was found to be adulterated, as the insect damaged matter in it exceeded the permitted limit (As per item A.05.08 in appendix B of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules insect damaged matter in Coriander (Dhania) Whole shall not exceed 5 per cent by weight. The insect damaged matter in the sample was 20.3 per cent). The Food Inspector of the local area (PW. 3) instituted the complaint against the vendor. The Trial Court acquitted the vendor relying on the decision of the Full Bench of the court in Food Inspector v. Prabhakaran ( 1982 KLT 809 ). Hence this appeal by the complainant, Food Inspector.

(2.) Since a larger bench of this court has overruled the dictum in Prabhakaran's case (vide Mathukutty v. State of Kerala ( 1987 (2) KLT 867 ). it was contended that the acquittal is liable to be reversed and the vendor is liable to be convicted.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondent vendor made an endeavour to sustain the order of acquittal on other grounds. First ground urged by him is that the prosecution is incompetent inasmuch as the complaint was not filed by the Food Inspector who took the sample. The food inspector(PW. 3) who filed the complaint in this case has been authorised to institute prosecution as per the provisions of S.20(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (for short 'the Act'). This is evidenced by Ext. P17 notification. Hence there is no merit in the aforesaid contention.