A MURALI Vs. BUSETTY SATYANARAYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In C.C. No. 121 of 1987 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Uravakonda, the accused was prosecuted by the Food Inspector under the provisions of Sec. 16(1) (a) (i) and (ic) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act on the allegation that the sample of ground nut oil taken from the shop of the accused was found to have been adulterated with castor oil. The learned Magistrate acquitted the accused on two grounds. The first ground is that A. Murali, the Food Inspector, who has taken the sample and also the other Food Inspector M, Honnappa (P.W. 2) do not possess the required qualifications. The second ground is that the sample was not taken as per the Rules. As against the said order of acquittal the State has preferred Cr1. Appeal No. 990/89 and M. Honnappa filed Cr1. Appeal No. 581/89. The Criminal Revision Case No. 238/89 was filed by the other Food Inspector A. Murali.

(2.) The first question which is common in all the three matters is, whether the two Food Inspectors A. Murali and M. Honnappa are validly appointed. They were appointed as Food Inspectors by the Government in G.O. Ms. No. 186 Medical and Health (LI) dated 26th February 1982 and the notification was published in the Gazelle dated 26th February, 1982. The ground on which the learned Magistrate held that they are not validly appointed is based on Rule 8 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules 1955. That rule prescribes the qualifications for Food Inspector. It lays down that a person shall not be qualified for appointment as. Food Inspector unless he is a medical Officer in charge of health administration of a local area etc. The proviso to that rule says that a person who is a qualified Sanitary Inspector having experience as such fm a minimum period of one year and has received at least three months training in whole or in parts in food inspection and sampling work may be eligible for appointment as food inspector upto the period ending on the 31st March 1985 and may continue as such if so appointed even though he does not fulfil the qualifications laid down in clauses (a) to (c). In this case both the Food Inspectors A. Murali and M. Honnappa did not possess the qualifications prescribed in clauses (a) to (c). But they were appointed as Food Inspectors by virtue of the qualifications prescribed in the proviso noted above. The learned counsel appearing for, the Food Inspectors has referred to the certificates issued to them. The evidence also shows that they were working as Sanitary Inspectors for a minimum period of one year and that they have received the necessary training in food inspection and sampling work. So under the proviso to the rule, they are eligible for appointment as Food Inspectors upto the period ending on 31st March, 1985. They were appointed as Slated earlier on 26-2-1982. The rule further says that if they are so appointed prior to that date they can continue as Food Inspectors. Therefore, I agree with the contention of the learned counsel that their appointment is valid and they can continue as Food Inspectors because the rule says that they may continue as such if so appointed even though they do not fulfil the qualifications laid down in clauses (a) to (c).

(3.) The other point on which the accused were acquitted is that the sample was not taken as per the Rules. On this point I agree with the finding of the learned Magistrate. Therefore the acquittal of the accused on the ground that the sample was not taken as per the Rules is confirmed.