PUSHPALATHA Vs. R LAKSHMI FOOD INSPECTOR COIMBATORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision filed under Secs. 397 and 401 of the Code of criminal Procedure is canvassed by the petitioners 1 to 4 herein, who are the accused respectively before the Learned Additional Judicial I Class Magistrate, Coimbatore in C. C. No. 497 of 1988, against whom a charge under Secs. 7 (1)andl6 (1) (a) (i) read with Sec. 2 (i) (a)and (m) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, was framed and of which, when they were questioned, the petitioners pleaded not guilty.

(2.) SHORT facts which led to the filing of this revision are stated as follows: The second petitioner was the owner of the business enterprises by name Ranganayaki Enterprises situated at No. 25, Aerodrome Road , Coimbatore, while the first petitioner was the employee under her and looking after the sales on 5. 8. 1986. The fourth petitioner was the proprietor of the third petitioner by name Sri gayathri Agencies situated at 473, R. G. Street, Coimbatore, a firm of Foods and General merchants. P. W. 1 the Food Inspector claims that she is the complainant before the court below and that at about 9. 45 a. m. on 5. 8. 1986, she made a statutory purchase of six packets of 100 grams each of coriander powder in all totalling to 600 grams from the first petitioner in packets bearing manufacturer s name in the label as Sri Gayathri Agencies, namely the third petitioner herein at Rs. 10. 50 and that the said powder kept for sale since was suspected to be adulterated, she prepared Form VI and served copies of the said form on petitioners 1 to 3. After observing the necessary formalities in taking the samples and packing the same as per the Rules. P. W. 1 prepared Form VII and after completing the report sent one sample to the Analyst along with Form VII at Coimbatore on the same day. She has stated that she despatched the two remaining sample packets to the Local Health Authority with Form VII under proper acknowledgment. She had also sent the original seal used to seal the samples with one Form VII and sent to Public Analyst, under the acknowledgement Ex. P-7. The Analyst report dated 18. 9. 1986 was received in Form III and in that it was stated that the sample does not conform to the standard for coriander powder and that it contained excess ash to the extent of 10 per cent and that therefore, the sample was found adulterated. Therefore, she laid the complaint against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Secs. 7 (1) and 16 (1) (a) (i) read with Sec. 2 (i) (a) & (m) of the Prevention of Food adulteration Act, 1954 as amended.

(3.) IN the result, on the ground aforesaid alone the revision stands succeeded, and accordingly it is allowed. Consequently, the charge framed by the learned Additional Judicial I Class Magistrate, Coimbatore in C. C. No. 497 of 1988 dated 4. 10. 1988 is hereby quashed. .