MANICKAM Vs. FOOD INSPECTOR, THIAGADURGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a criminal revision petition by the accused. The Food Inspector of the Thiagadurgam town Panchayat took samples of milk from the accused and sent it for analysis. On receipt of the result of the analyst showing that the sample was deficient in fat and solid not fat to the extent of 28.5% and 15.2% respectively, he filed the complaint before the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ulundurpet, stating that on 28.9.1987, the accused was in possession of the milk for sale at the Salem Main Road, Thiagadurgam and thereby the accused has committed an offence punishable under S.7(1) read with S. 16(1)(a)(1) read with S.2(ia) (a)(m) of the Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The Court, after trial found the accused guilty of the offence and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for 9 months. On appeal, the Sessions Court, South Arcot, by judgment, dt. 16.2.1984 confirmed the conviction and reduced the sentence to rigorous imprisonment for 6 months. As against the judgment, the present revision petition was filed.

(2.) THE case of the revision petitioner is that as per the evidence on record, the milk was collected near the Panchayat Office at Thiagadurgam and that it was then taken to the nearby park and all the other operations of sampling were done in that park. He would further add that as per the deposition of the Food Inspector (the complainant), he poured 27 drops of formalin as preservative, whereas in the memo sent to the Analyst (Ex. P4) it is stated that only 16 drops were added. He would further contend that the alleged witness who attested the purchase of milk was not examined, that his signature is illegible and address unknown and that it is not possible to ascertain whether he was an independent witness. He would further add that the Food Inspector in his complaint has cited one Ganesan, Health Assistant, Panchayat Union, Thiagadurgam, as witness. The purpose for which he was cited was not known since ultimately that witness was not examined, but there was room to suspect that the person who signed the proceedings of purchase of milk (Ex. P1) might be that Health Assistant himself. Accordingly, he would argue that there was violation of S. 10(7) of the Act and that the proceedings are vitiated. The Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Public Prosecutor would place reliance on a decision of a Full Bench, Kerala High Court to contend that the obligation cast on the Food Inspector by S.10(7) of the Act is discharged by calling independent witnesses, but if they are unwilling to affix their signatures, the mention of the fact by the Food Inspector would be sufficient compliance and that if they affix their signatures, there is no need to cite them as witnesses before the court.

(3.) BUT when the whole process of taking sample is challenged, it should be open for the Court or to the accused to summon the persons, who have affixed their signatures, for examination. For that purpose, whenever signatures of witnesses have been obtained, it is obvious that the names and addresses of the persons who have attested should also find a place. Otherwise, the whole purpose of S. 10(7) which is to ensure the fairness of sample taking is destroyed. In fact when names and addresses are missing, it will not be possible for the court to test the veracity and fairness of the operation. Of course, it is only when the operation of sample taking is challenged, and when there are reasons to doubt its fairness that the absence of name and address would make the operations invalid. Otherwise it will not.