LAWS(APH)-1983-6-11

PADMA LAXMAN Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Decided On June 07, 1983
PADMA LAXMAN Appellant
V/S
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case the petitioner has been convicted for the offence under Section (1) read with Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Food Adulteration Act 37 of 1954 and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of six months simple imprisonment and further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs 1,200/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six. months. The conviction was confirmed on appeal. Thus this revision. The charge levelled against him is that he adulterated rape seed oil with caster oil which was found to be 4.3% in excess contravening the above said provision.

(2.) Sri Subhashan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in spite of the Legislature imposing the rigorous application of Section 20AA excluding the Probation of Offenders Act, this Court can extend the beneficial legislation under Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. I am afraid, T cannot accede to the contention. Section 20 AA postulates that nothing contained in the Probation of Offenders Act. 1958 (Act. 20 of 1958) or Section 360 of the Code of Criminul Procedure, 1973 (Act 2 of 1974) shall apply to a person convicted of an offence under this Act unless that person is under eighteen years of age. Prior to the amendment of the Act, introducing Sec. 20AA, the Courts have extended the beneficial provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act. in cases dealing with an offence punishable under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act (AIR 1972 SC 1295). The Act was intended to eradicate the menace to public health committing acts of adulterating the essential articles of food. It was with a view to eradicate that antisocial evil and for ensuring purity in the articles of food, the legislature has intervened and introduced section 20AA. Therein it has specifically excluded the applicability of the Section 360 of the code or the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act. In view of this specific exclusion by legislative judgment, the Courts are precluded from applying the above provisions to the offences punishable undet the provisions of this Act. The rehabilitatory purpose of the Probation of Offenders Act, is pervasive enough technically to take within its wings an Offence even under this Act. But when the legislature has engraved expressly excluded the kindly application of Probation of Offenders Act, we have to respect the legislature judgment particularly when it was animated to eradicate the anti-social evil of adulteration of the essential articles of food in the public interest to ensure purity of the articles of food. The only exception engraved was the persons under the age of eighteen years. That circumstance does not apply to the facts in this case. Therefore, under these circumstances, I cannot accede to the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner for the application of Section 36. Cr. P.C.

(3.) The next contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Food Inspector was appointed in G.O.Ms. No. 313 Health dated 23-2-1956 wherein the area has been mentioned as the entire State and that therefore the appointment of the Food Inspector itself is void. If it is void,the action taken by the Food Inspector was without jurisdiction. Therefore, any conviction rendered on the basis of the void action cannot sustain. 1 am affraid, I cannot accede to this contention. 313 Health dated 23-2-1956 issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh the appointment of the Food Inspectors was notified under column 2 therein which has been shown "the Food Inspector having the Local area has been mentioned. Here, under 2 the municipality mentioned" the Commissioner and the Sanitary Inspector as the persons authorised to take samples of food and in coloumn 2 of local area it has been mentioned municipality having Health Officer. Therefore by virtue of this notification it connot be said that the action taken by the Food Inspector is without authority of law, This contention is also devoid of subtance. No further contentions have been raised