RAMASAMY CHETTIAR Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petition by the second accused in C.C. 143 of 1982 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate of Triunelveli.

(2.) On 14.8.1982, at about 7.30 a.m. the Food Inspector of Triunelveli Municipality purchased 900 ML of the mixture of cow and buffalo milk from the first accused Durai in West Car St, Tirunelveli. He prepared the sample for analysis as provided by law and sent the same for analysis to the Public Analyst, Guindy, on the same day. The report of the Public Analyst was to the effect that the milk contained 3.6% of fat and 5.2% of solids not-fat against the respective minimum of 4.5% and 8.5%. The Food Inspector coming therefore to conclusion that the milk was addultered in as much as it was deficient In solids-not fat to the extent of at least 38% and fat to the extent of at least 20% preferred the complaint in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate of Tirunelveli. against the salesman Durai (first accused) and the owner of the milk depot from whom the milk subjected to test was being sold to the first accused viz., Ramaswami Chettiar (second accused) for offences under section 7(i) and 16(1)(a)(i) read with section 2(ia)(a) and (m) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The trial Court upon perusing the evidence produced by the complainant held both the accused guilty of the offence with which they were charged convicted them thereunder and sentenced both the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six moths and in addition the first accused Durai to pay a fine of Rs. 1000 in default to undergo .rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months and the second accused to pay a fine of Rs. 2000 in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. On appeal, the first accused Durai the salesman was acquitted and the conviction and the sentence as against the second accused the owner of the milk depot were confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli on 7.12.1983. The revision is directed against that judgment by the second accused.

(3.) The first ground urged in this revision is that the notice under section 13(2) of the Act regarding the finding of adulteration by the Public Analyst was served on the accused on 6/9/1982 and the complaint to the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Tirunelveli was filed on 7/9/1982. that as per law, the complaint to the Magistrate should be anterior to the notice to the accused and on account of the fact of the complaint in this case being posterior to the notice to the accused, the whole proceeding is vitiated. I shall first deal with the question of law on his aspect.