DHANARAJ AN Vs. FOOD INSPECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is by the second accused in C.C.No. 69 of 1986 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Quilon. The accused was convicted for an offence under S.106(1) of the prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (the "Act"), and he was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of time, simple imprisonment ore two weeks. The accused preferred Crl.A.No. 32 of 1987, and the IInd Addl. Sessions Judge, Quilon, by judgment dated 27-11-1987 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the conviction and sentence Aggrieved by the same, the present Revision is filed.

(2.) The facts pertinent for a decision of this case are: The first accused, who is now acquitted, is the licensee of a Bakery by name, "New General Bakery" situated at M.C. 17/1063 in Andamukkam Ward of Quilon town. The Food Inspector inspected the shop at 3 P.M. on 29-1-1986 while the second accused was conducting the business and took a sample of 9 bottles described as pine-apple squash , out of 24 bottles of "pineapple squash" the commodity kept in the refrigerator for sale. Each bottle was found corked and it was containing an yellow liquid in gold spot bottles. A2 informed the Food Inspector that each bottle costs Re.1. Having purchased 9 bottles of the purpose of analysis, the Food Inspector divided these 9 bottles into 3 different pats of three bottles each, and sealed the bottles together into three samples. Ext. P4 mahazar was prepared evidencing the taking of the sample. The Public Analyst analysed the sample by applying the standards prescribed for fruits squash, which is given as item No. A16.04 of Appendix B of the Act. He found that the sample contained total soluble solids 19.8% weight by weight, while it should contain 40% weight by weight and he found the total sugar 28.6% wt. by wt.. There was a negative result forest artificial sweetness. He certified that the sample does not conform to the standard prescribed for fruit squash under the Act and Rules. Hence it is adulterated.

(3.) Both the Trial Court as well the appellate court applied the standard prescribed in A16.04 of Appendix B and convicted the accused for selling an adulterated fruit squash.