MEENAKSHISUNDARAM AND VADIVELMURUGAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petition against the conviction under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, as decided by the Judicial I Class Magistrate No. 1, Madurai, and confirmed by the I Additional Sessions Judge, Madurai.

(2.) The short point raised by the revision Petitioners is that the evidence regarding the analysis is defective on an important point. In the present case, the Public Analyst was not examined. As per Sec. 13(5) of the Act, a certificate signed by the Public Analyst may be used as evidence of the facts stated therein. But, for having such an evidentiary value, the certificate should conform to the standard prescribed. As per R. 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, as it stood amended after the Notification No. G.S.R. 1417, dated 20th Sept., 1976 in Form III, the Public Analyst should certify that the seal was separately sent by the Food Inspector. In the instant case, it is seen that the form used by the Public Analyst for his report is the old form printed prior to the notification referred to above and it does not, therefore, contain the attestation of the Public analyst to the effect that the seal fixed on the outer cover tallied with the specimen impression of the seal sent separately Therefore, Ex.P14, report of the Public Analyst, does not conform to the legal prescriptions and cannot be made use of as evidence without examination of the Public Analyst. The learned Public Prosecutor fairly conceded that the conviction cannot be sustained in the present case for the reason expounded above. Therefore, the finding of guilt arrived at on the basis of Ex.P14 is incorrect and is liable to be set aside.

(3.) Before parting with the case, it is deplored that even though the amendment is dated 20th Sept., 1976 the Public Analyst was not supplied with the form, as per the amendment, till Aug., 1979. In a matter like the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, in which every segment of society is vitally interested, any amendment should have been brought to the notice of all those who are involved in the implementation. The revision petition is allowed. The conviction and sentence are set aside. Conviction set aside.