P K MOORTHY Vs. FOOD INSPECTOR KUMBAKONAM MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal revision case has been posted before us on the orders of the Honourable Chief Justice on the suggestion of one of us (Maheswaran, J.) inasmuch as the question which arises for determination in this case is of considerable importance,

(2.) THE revision petitioner was convicted by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate of Kumbakonam of an Offence punishable under Section 7 (1) read with Sections 16 (1) (a) and 2 (i) (1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and was sentenced to R. I. for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500 on the ground that on 30-4-1976 at about 6 a. m. P. W. 1, a Food Inspector of Kumbakonam Municipality visited the milk depot owned by the revision petitioner and he purchased 700 ml. of cow's milk for the purposes of analysis and sent one of the sample bottles to the Public Analyst who has given the opinion that the sample was adulterated inasmuch as it was deficient in solids-not-fat content to the extent of 85%. On appeal, the learned Sessions Judge of West Tanjavur Division confirmed the conviction and the sentence.

(3.) IT has been contended before us that the trial and the conviction are vitiated in that the Food Inspector has failed to comply with Section 13 (2) of the Act. Therefore, the only question that falls for determination by us is whether non-compliance with the provisions of Sections 11 and 13 (2) of the Act vitiates the entire proceedings. In considering that question we have to find out first of all whether the provisions contained in Sections 11 and 13 (2) of the Act are directory in nature or are mandatory.