FOOD INSPECTOR Vs. PUNERIYA KSHORE KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. Ail these appeals are coming up for admission. The twin questions, which are being elaborately argued by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, are the question of jurisdiction of the Food Inspector to life the sample beyond the local area in respect of which he holds office and acquittal recorded on the ground that except the evidence of P.W. 1, the Food Inspectors, the mediators had not supported the case of the prosecution. The learned Additional public Prosecutor also had drawn the attention of this Court to Section 57 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and would contend that the aspect of notification and the jurisdiction of the Food Inspector can be taken judicial notice by the Court. The learned Counsel, no doubt, in all fairness submitted that the notifications were not produced before the learned Magistrate and also the Food Inspectors, who were examined in these cases, also had not deposed about this aspect, however, the learned Counsel also would contend that acquittal recorded on the ground that the statement of Food Inspector is not corroborated by other evidence can not be sustained, in the light of the view expressed by the Apex Court in Food Inspector v.G. Satyanarayana The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would contend that these are all matters, which may have to be remitted back for affording opportunity to prove the first aspect.

(2.) Heard the Counsel and perused the findings recorded in all these cases.

(3.) Criminal Appeal No. 1665 of 2004 is preferred against an order of acquittal recorded in C.C. No. 17 of 2001 on the file of the VII Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, and dated 29-11 -2002. The brief facts of the case are as hereunder: "On 1-10-2001 at about 11.45 a.m., Food Inspector along with his A.F.C., Vigilance Officials and Flying Squad, visited the shop of accused No. 2 and found accused No. 1 transacting the business. He then disclosed his identity and secured the presence of two independent witnesses, and inspected the shop of the accused, found an open gunny bag of dall containing approximately 25 Kgs. On enquiry by the Food Inspector, accused disclosed that the said dall is green gram dall kept for sale to public for human consumption, purchased from accused No. 4 firm vide Bill No. 6261, dated 23-9-2001, having suspected of adulteration, purchased 750 grams of green gram dall for Rs. 19.50 ps. under a cash receipt, served From VI Notice, intimated that the purchased sample of dall will be sent to the Public Analyst for analysis, obtained acknowledgment of Form VI, divided the sample into three equal parts, placed each part in a clean, dry and empty plastic tin, closed each tin with caps, tied with twine, pasted labels issued by L.H.A., wrapped each part in thick brown paper, folded ends, pasted paper ellp, obtained the signatures of accused, witnesses in such a manner that part of the paper slip covers the signature and part of the signature covers brown paper, each tin secured with strong thread, affixed seals at four distinct places, i.e., one at top, one at bottom and one each on either side of the sample packet, and that all the above process of the Food Inspector covered under a panchanama, read over and explained the contents to accused and witnesses, obtained their signatures after admitting the facts of the panchanama are true and correct and that on 3-10-2001, handed over one part of the sample packet to the Public Analyst along with copy of Form VII memorandum and deposited remaining two parts of the sample parts with the concerned L.H.A. 'jr safe custody along with two copies of Form VII memorandums, under acknowledgments. On receipt of the Public Analyst's report in Form III, opining that the sample does not conform to the permissible limit of damaged grains and it is therefore adulterated, and also received written consent, issued by the Director, IPM., U/s. 20(1) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred in short as 'Act') to launch prosecution against the accused."