IN RE: PANCHAMI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short point that arises in this case is, whether R. 9A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1977, framed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, (Central Act XXXVII of 1954) is mandatory or directory.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution is that on 24th January, 1977, at about 7 A. M., P.W.I the Food Inspector of Kumbakonam Municipality saw the petitioner, a licensed milk vendor selling milk in Nageswaran Thirumanjanaveedhi in Kumbakonam. P.W. 1 served on him Ex. PI, Form VI, expressing his intention of taking sample of milk for the purpose of analysis. Thereafter P. W. 1 purchased 660 ml. of milk from the petitioner for Rs. 1.32 p. and obtained from him Ex. P2, receipt. As required by law he packed the milk in three bottles and sent one of the bottles to the Public Analyst for analysis. Ex. P4 is the report of the Public Analyst to the effect that the sample of milk sent to him was deficient in solids not -fat to the extent of at least 42 per cent. P.W. 1 served a copy of the report of the Public Analyst on the petitioner herein and obtained from him an acknowledgment, Ex. P5. Thereafter the petitioner was charged under the aforesaid sections.

(3.) THE Trial Court, on the evidence projected by the parties, came to the conclusion that the petitioner was liable to be convicted under SS. 7(1) and 16(1)(a)(1), read with S. 2(ia)(a)(m) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and, therefore the petitioner was convicted thereon and sentenced to undergo R.I for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/ - in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Against the said conviction and sentence by the trial Court, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, East Thanjavur Division at Nsagapattinam. The learned Sessions Judge, on going through the evidence adduced in the case confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Mayuram and dismissed the appeal (C.A. 269/77) filed by the petitioner. It is as against this the petitioner has filed the present revision.