FOOD INSPECTOR Vs. MATHEW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent was a clerk attached to a tea factory. On 23. 5,1984, a Food Inspector visited the factory and took sample from'tea dust'stored in the factory. Respondent received the price from the Food inspector and issued a cash receipt. When one part of the sample was analysed by the Public Analyst, it was found to be adulterated as it did not conform to the standards prescribed, and the tea dust con sained cash-ewnut endocarp besides structures of tea leaves. Respondent as well as the owner of the tea factory were prosecuted for the offence under Sec. 16 (1) of the Prevention of food Adulteration Act (for short'the Act'). During trial, the owner of the tea factory died and hence prosecution continued against the respondent alone. One of the other parts of the sample was sent to the Director of Central Food Laboratory on the request of the respondent. THE certificate issued by the said Director also shows that the sample contained structures of tea leaves and cashewnut endocarp, besides non-conformity with the standards prescribed for tea. However, the trial Magistrate acquitted the respondent mainly on the ground that the tea dust was in unfinished stage in she factory when the Food Inspector took the sample therefrom. Food Inspector preferred this appeal against the said order of acquittal.

(2.) LEARNED Public Prosecutor contended that the respondent cannot escape from punishment as the tea dust was sold by him to the food Inspector. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, it is immaterial that the tea dust was not in finished stage and it was the duty of the respondent to appraise the Food Inspector of the non-saleable condition of the food article. In the trial Court, it was contended by the respondent that he had represented to the Food Inspector at the initial stage itself that finished product was not available for sale in the factory, but ignoring the aforesaid representation the Food Inspector took tea dust from one of the gunny bags kept in the working hall of the factory and that he received the price offered since the Food Inspector ordered him to do so. The owner of the factory was not present when the Food Inspector visited the factory. He also contended that the tea dust, after Completing the process of manufacture would be stored in'bonded room'of the factory.

(3.) MUCH effort is not now necessary to repel the contention of Sri Rama Shenoy because the Supreme Court has since specifically overruled the dictum in S. Moses, In re. , (1959) 2 M. L. J. 49:1959 M. L. J. (Crl)491: A. I. R 1959 Mad. 185: I. L. R. 1959 Mad 418. Shah, J. , (as he then was) who delivered the judgment in Sarjoo Prasad v. State of U. P. , A. I. R. 1961 S. C. 631, has observed as follows: Every person, be he an employer or an agent is prohibited from selling adulterated food and infringement of the prohibition is by Sec. 16 penalised. . . . . Prohibition of sale of adulterated food is evidently imposed in the larger interest of maintenance of public health. If the owner of a shop in which adulterated foor is sold is without proof of mens rea liable to be punished for sale of adulterated food, there is no reason why an agent or a servant of the owner is not liable to be punished for contravention of the same provision unless he is shown to have guilty knowledge". There is no change in the law so declared by the Supreme Court till this day and the Supreme Court has reiterated the principle in a later case also. (Vide Ibrahim Raji Moideen v. Food Inspector, 1969 K. L. T. 628 ). So, the decision in Kunchus case, 1959 k. L. T. 574, is not good law in view of the Supreme Court decision cited supra. Thus, the first point canvassed by the learned counsel for the respondent has to be repelled and I do so.