SATHI APPI REDDY Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the first accused in C.C.No. 514 of 1982 who is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 16 (1) and 7 read with Section 2 (i) (a) & (m) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-. The allegation is that the appellant was selling Ajanta Tea Dust at Tadepaliigudem on 24-6-1982 at about 5 P.M. and the tea dust is substandard tea dust. The Food Inspector and the staff inspected the premises door No. 10-4-3/1, 16th ward, Gollaveedhi Tadepalligudem in the presence of mediators and suspected the adulteration in the tea packets which are displayed for sale and asked A-1 a sample of Ajanta Dust Tea of 4 grams for the purpose of analysis by the public Analyst, Hyderabad. 96 packets of 4 grams each of Ajantha Dust Tea totalling 375 grams were purchased and the cost to tea at. Rs. 9.40 ps was paid and the mediators signed the receipt. 375 grams of Ajanta Dust Tea o 96 packets was divided into 3 parts each 32 packets i.e., 125 grams put in three empty clean and dry plastic bottles corcked and affixed the labels bearing Sample No. 846, sealed and wrapped with cover paper and affixed the paper sljps bearing the signature of the Commissioner, Local Health Authority, Tadepalligudem Municipality. No. 845 tied with thread and again sealed and obtained the signature of A-1 on the three sample bottles in a manner that the paper slips and wrapper both carry the signature of A-1 and observed all the procedural formalities. A-1 told them that the Tea Dust business was in the name of his daughter A-2 possessing the required licence but actually he was conducting the business. One sealed bottle No. 845 was sent to the Public Analysis Hyderabad by registered post parcel for analysis enclosing form No. VII with his specimen impression seal in a sealed packet were handed over to the Commissioner, Local Health Authority, Tadepalligudem Municipality on 25-6-82. A copy of Form No. VII with his specimen impression seal was also sent separately to the Public Analyst, Hyderabad by registered post under postal receipt No. 1505 dt. 25-6-1982 and received acknowledgment on 5-7-1982. On analysis the sample was declared to be adulterated. Thereupon the Food Inspector, Tadepalligudem, filed a case against both the accused alleging that they have committed the offence under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954. On consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution, the trial Court came to the conclusion that A-1 committed the offence and A-2 is acquitted. The lower appellate Court confirmed the conclusion of the trial Court.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the procedure prescribed under Rule 16 (b) and Rule 22 (A) of the Rules have not been followed and sufficient quantity of the sample as prescribed under Rule 22 is not sent and as such the proeceedings are vitiated

(3.) The report sent by Public Analyst and Central Food Laboratory, Exs. P-10 and P-14 disclose that the tea is adulterated. The contention is that the investigating agency i.e., PW-1 did not follow the procedure prescribed under the Rules. Rules 16 and 22 are designed to ensure that sufficient quantity of sample is sent for anaylsis and to enable the possibility or Scope for tempering with the samples sent to the public Analyst. The evidence of P.W. 1 is that the packets purchased from A-1 on 25-6-1982 was put into three bottles, each containing 125 grams after observing all formalities and the bottles were tied with lids and tied with thread and Mo. 845 labels were affixed showing the particulars of sample and the bottles were sealed, wrapped in covers, slips with the signature of the Local Health Authority were affixed and again tied with thread, wrapped with cover, and on the cover paper and slips A-1 himself signed and the mediators report was drafted by PW-1 which is marked as Ex. P-6 wherein PWs. 2 and 3 are attestors. Out of the three sealed bottles, one of them with the specimen seal was sent to the Public Analyst. The report of the Analyst is that the same is adulterated and contained foreign matter. Rule 16(b) is as follows :-