KADA SAMBAMURTHY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. The short but important question that falls for decision in this case is whether a second application under section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (Act 37 of 1954) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) to have the sample of the alleged adulterated food examined by the Director of Central Food Laboratory is maintainable.

(2.) The necessary facts may briefly be stated. On 29-12-55 at about 3-30 P. M. the Food Inspector, Ichapuram Gratn Panchayat inspected the shop of the petitioner, purchased 300 grams of Bengal gram flour and obtained a receipt from the petitioner in the presence of the mediator. The sample so purchased by the Food Inspector was divided into three equal parts and each of the parts was put and sealed in three empty and clean dry bottles. One of the bottles was given to the petitioner under a receipt obtained from him. The second was sent to the Public Analyst, Hyderabad. The third was deposited into the Court. The Public Analyst gave a report against the petitioner and hence the Food Inspector lodged a complaint against the petitioner. Thereafter the petitioner filed an application in the Court under Section 13 (2) of the Act requesting the Court to send the part of the sample which was left with him by the Food inspector for analysis to the Director of Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta. The court after ascertaining that the mark and seal on the bottle were intact, despatched the sample under its own seal to the Director of the Central Food Laboratory. Thereupon the Director, Centra! Food Laboratory, Calcutta sent a certificate to the Court specifying the result of his analysis, The certificate given by the Director was in favour of the petitioner. The Food Inspector then filed an application Cr.M.P.No 195 of 1970 before the Court for sending the third sample remaining in the Court again to the Director Central Food Laboratory Calcutta. The petition was opposed by the petitioner mainly on the ground that the certificate already given by the Director was final and a second application to disturb the finality of the said certificate was not permissible in law, But the learned Magistrate allowed the petition on 13-11-1970. The petitioner, aggrieved by the said order, filed Criminal Revision Petition No. 71/1970 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Srikakulam under Sections 415 and 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The learned Sessions Judge, has now made this reference recommending that the order of the learnd Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ichapuram in Cr. M. P. No. 195/1970 be set aside, Before I proceed to consider the question whether the second application by the Food Inspector under Section 13 (2) of the Act is maintaipable, it is necessary to read the relevant provisions of the Act. Section 11 of the Act which prescribes the procedure to be followed by the Food Inspector after taking the sample of food for anyalysis is as follows:-

(3.) Under Section 11 of the Act the Food Inspector has to divide the sample of food taken by him for analysis into three parts then and there and seal or fasten up each part in such a manner as its nature permits He has to deliver one of the parts to the person from whom the sample had been taken, send another part for analysis to the Public Analyst and retain the third part for production in case anv legal proceedings are taken or for analysis by the Director, Central Food Laboratory under sub-section (2) of Section 13 when an application is hled by the accused vendor or the complainant. Under Section 3(1) the Public Analyst has to submit a report to the Food Inspector of the result of the analysis of any article of food submitted to him for analysis. Section 13(2) provides for the filing of an application by the accused vendor or the complainant before the Court for sending the part of the sample mentioned in sub-clause (i) or sub-clause (iii) of clause (c) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 11 to the Director of the Central Food Laboratory for a certificate. On receipt of the application the Court shall first ascertain that the mark and seal or fastening as provided in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section II are in tact and then despatch the part of the sample under its own seal to the Director of Central Foot Laboratory. The Director shall thereupon send a certificate to the Court specifying the result of his analysis in the prescribed form within one month from the date of receipt of the sample. Under sub-section (3) of Section 13 the certificate issued by the Director of Central Food Laboratory under sub-sec. (2) shall supersede the report given bv the Public analyst under Sub-sec. (1). Under the proviso to sub-sec.(5) any document purporting to be a certificate signed by the Director of Central Food Laboratory shall be final and conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein.