ABDUL MAJEED Vs. STATE BY FOOD INSPECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed by the accused C.C.77 of 1978 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thanjavur at Kumbakonam, questioning the correctness and legality of the judgment made in Criminal Appeal No. 237 of 1978 on the file of the Court of Session, West Thanjavur, confirming the conviction passed by the trial Court against him, of an offence under S. 7(1) read with S 16(1)(a)(i) and section 2 (ia) and (0 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months.

(2.) The brief facts of the case, which led to this revision, can be summarised as follows: On 30th Nov. 1977, at about 11-40 a.m., P.W.I, the Food Inspector of Kumbakonam Municipality, in the presence of P.W. 2, took a sample of 375 grams of gingelly oil on payment of Rs. 3-75 as evidenced by Ex. P2 (cash receipt) from the grocery shop under the name and style of Rani stores situate at Sowrashtra Big street, Kumbakonam, of which the accused was the owner as well as the licensee, after observing the procedure and formalities laid down under the Act. Exs. PI and P3 are the Form VI and Form VII notices respectively.

(3.) Part of the sample of food, viz., the gingelly oil, sent to the public analyst, was found on analysis to have contained "free-fatty-acids" in excess of the maximum allowable limit to the extent of 110 per cent, though as per clause A17 11 Appendix B to the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), gingelly oil should not contain more than 3.0 per cent of "free-fatty-acids." Ex. P4 is the report of the Public Analyst and it was received by the Local (Health) Authority on 19th Dec., 1977. The complaint was filed before the trial Court on 22nd March, 1978. The Local (Health) Authority, after the institution of the prosecution against the accused, served Ex. Dl, a copy of Ex. P4, with a memo of intimation (Ex. P5.), as required by S. 13(2) of the Act on 3rd April, 1978. Exs. P6 and P7 are the acknowledgements of the accused evidencing the receipt of Exs. Dl and P5. According to P.W. 1, the delay in institution of the prosecution, viz., after the expiry of more than three months, was occasioned due to his availing of his earned leave. P.W.2, who has attested Exs.Pl and P2, has not supported the prosecution case.