IN RE: ABDUL KHADER Vs. A.B.C.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Coimbatore West division, confirming the conviction of the revision petitioner under S. 7(i) read with S. 2(1)(a)(i) and 16(1)(a)(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three months and also a fine of Rs. 500.00 imposed on him by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Pollachi.

(2.) On 3rd May, 1977 at about 11.30 A.M., P.W. 1, the Food Inspector of Valparat Township Committee, purchased 600 grams of cumin seeds for Rs. 10.80.00 from the revision petitioner for analysis. After observing all the formalities, he divided them Into three equal parts and sealed them in accordance with the rules in three clean envelopes and sent one of such packets to the analyst who sent a report. Ex. P 4, which showed that the sample contains extraneous matter in excess, to the extent of 142 per cent. Later, the Food Inspector filed a complaint.

(3.) The only contention taken before me by the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner is that R.18 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules has not been observed, that the said Rule is mandatory and non-compliance of that Rule may vitiate the entire proceedings. In support, he invited my attention to Ramalingam Vs. Food Inspector, Nagapattinam Municipality, 1979 L.W Crl. 103 where Suryamurthy, J., has taken the view that the Rule is mandatory and failure to observe that Rule vitiates the entire trial. The learned Judge relied on a decision of a Bench of the Mysore High Court in Belgaum Borough Municipality Vs. S. Shanker A.I.R. 1968. Mys. 196 where the learned Judges of the Mysore High Court