KARUMBAYIRAM Vs. THE FOOD INSPECTOR, THIRUVAIYARU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioner has been convicted of an offence under S. 7(1), 16(1)(a) read with 2(1)(a)(m) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Thanjavur and has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ -. On appeal the conviction and sentence were confirmed by the Sessions Judge, Thanjavur.

(2.) THE facts are: on 25th September, 1976 at about 9.15 A.M. P.W.1, the Food Inspector of Thiruvaiyar Panchayat purchased 660 ml. of milk from the petitioner, who brought the milk for sale. Ex. P.2 is the receipt for the same. P.W.1, divided the samples into three parts, one was sent to the Analyst. From Ex. P4, the report of the Analyst it is seen that the milk was deficient in solids not fat to the extent of 31%. P.W.1 then laid the charge sheet.

(3.) SUCH , however, is not the case here. In the present case there is no evidence at all that the Food Inspector called for any one or more persons to be present at the time when he took action. There is no evidence whether he called any person to witness and whether that person refused to attest. When there is a statutory duty imposed on the Food Inspector to comply with the provisions of S. 10(7) of the Act, it would be for the prosecution to satisfy the Court that it is not on account of any desire to circumvent the provisions of S. 10(7) but due to the non -availability of witnesses or some such cause. Such evidence is clearly wanting in this case. The offence of food adulteration carries a drastic sentence of imprisonment and a fine not less than Rs. 4,000/ -, and it is therefore all the more important that the safeguards provided under S. 10(7) are strictly observed so as to assure impartiality about the detection of such offence. In Babulal v. State of Gujarat : A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 1277 the Food Inspector had complied with the provision of law by calling a Panch witness and the Panch witness admitted his signatures. In Ram Labhaya v. Delhi Municipality : A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 789 the Food Inspector called the neighbouring shop keepers to witness the taking of samples but the witnesses were unwilling to co -operate. In the present case however, we find that the sample was taken by the Food Inspector at about 9:15 A.M. in a street of Thiruvayaru and there must have been some persons present near about. But the Food Inspector has not called any person to witness the taking of sample. Therefore, the Food Inspector has not observed the provisions of S. 10(7) by calling a person or persons to witness the taking of sample. There has been, therefore, a violation of the procedure prescribed by law and for that reason the conviction of the petitioner cannot be sustained. The revision is allowed, and the conviction and sentence are set aside. The fine, if collected, shall be refunded.