V ARUMUGHAM Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition coming on for hearing on this day, upon perusing the petition, and the orders of the Lower Courts, and the record in the case, and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. I. Subramaniam Advocate for the Petitioner, and of Mr. A.N. Rajan, Government Advocate, on behalf of the State, the Court made the following order: This is a revision filed by the accused in C.C. No. 597 of 1982 on the file of the Sub divisional Judicial Magistrate, Tuticorin, against the conviction and sentence of six months R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to undergo three months R.I. for the offences under sections 7(1) and 16(1) (a) read with section 2(ia)(m) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1951, hereinafter referred to as the Act, imposed by the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Tuticorin which was confirmed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, in C.A. No. 146 of 1983.

(2.) The Food Inspector, Tuticorin Municipality, filed the complaint against the petitioner alleging that on 20-9.1982 at about 10.00 a.m. he along with his sanitary mistry went to No. 833/B, Palayamkottai Road (Jayabharathi Provisions Stores), to collect food samples and in that provision stores the revision petitioner and his servants were selling provisions and one person wanted honey and the revision petitioner got 15 paise and gave him one small bottle and on seeing it he wanted the honey to be sold by the petitioner to him for the purpose of analysis and he asked the person who had purchased honey from the shop and one Subbiah Pillai to be a witness. But the person who purchased honey refused to be a witness and went away and in the presence of Subbiah Pillai he purchased honey and he prepared Form No. 6 gave One copy to the petitioner and obtained signature of Subbiah Pillai and his mistry and purchased honey bottles in the packets and he paid Rs. 7.50 for the six packets and gave the receipt to the petitioner and he had obtained the signature from Subbiah Pillai and the sanitary mistry. In each of the packets he found the words affixed by a rubber stamp stating sugar water and other words. Each bottle was priced 15 paise and each bottle contains pale brown colour liquid. There were twelve bottles in each packet. He wanted the manufacturer's name and the warranty. But the petitioner stated that he had nothing. Later he tied the packet with yarn and also gave the sample number. Then pasted the packet with brown paper and again affixed the seal of the Health Authority and he also obtained the signature of the petitioner in them in slips and pasted them and sealed the packets. He prepared Form No. 7 and also affixed in them the sample seals and he sent one packet with Form No. 7 to Public Analyst through railway parcel with intimation to local health authority and he sent the railway receipt for the parcel with another Form No. 7 under registered post to Public Analyst and he got the acknowledgement from the Public Analyst.

(3.) Later he got the report from the Analyst stating that the sample contained coal tar dye (Metanil yellow Orange RN) not permitted for use in any food and the sample does not conform to the standard for honey.