MOHAMMED KUNJI Vs. FOOD INSPECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS-father and son respectively, stand convicted for offences punishable under S.16(1)(a)(I)(II) read with S.2(1a)(b) and (m) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (Central Act 37 of 1954 as amended by Act 34 of 1976, and rule 5, Appendix B (A. 14) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. P.W.2, Food Inspector purchased tea dust from 2nd petitioner. A sample of this was sent for analysis and was found to be adulterated. On this evidence, Courts below found petitioners guilty as charged.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for petitioners contended that trial was without jurisdiction, for, according to him, the Magistrate of First Class, who tried the case, or for that matter, any other First Class Magistrate is not empowered under S.16-A of the Act, to try such offences 'in a summary way'. This contention must fail because, such a notification has been issued. It reads as under:

(3.) THEN, counsel submitted that there was violation of S.13(2). Submission is that by Exts.P.13 and P.14, petitioners were informed that a Complaint had been filed before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class. Kasaragod, while infact, it was filed before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class. Hosdurg. Exts. P.13 and P.14 are dated 5-3-1981. By Exts P.20 and P.21 dated 13-3-1981, petitioners were informed that the court was the court of the Magistrate at Hosdurg. Thus the error was corrected promptly. A hypothetical argument does not commend acceptance because, petitioners did not, as a matter of fact," move any Court to send a sample for analysis. Prejudice is a question of fact. There must be basis to think that prejudice was caused. One, who never made an attempt to get the sample analysed, cannot Complain of prejudice. No other contention was raised. I am not inclined to think that the findings entered are vitiated by any illegality, irregularity or impropriety, to call for interference in revision.