SHRIKISHEN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is reference by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, No. 1, Jodhpur recommending that the conviction of the petitioner under sec. 16 read with Rule 50 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, be set aside.

(2.) The case against the petitioner was that on 2nd October, 1960 at 10.26 A.M. he was found by the Food Inspector preparing and selling sweets and savouries in an open and insanitary place. Before the trial Magistrate the Food Inspector gave his own statement in support of the complaint. The witness who had signed the memorandum of inspection was examined by the accused. The learned trial Magistrate found that petitioner had contravened Rule 50(10) and (11) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules and was thus guilty under sec. 16 of the Act. He imposed a fine of Rs. 50/ - on the petitioner. The petitioner preferred a revision before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, No. 1, Jodhpur who had made the above recommendation on the ground that the search and inspection of the petitioners premises by the Food Inspector was in contravention of sec. 10 sub - clause(7) of the Act inasmuch as the Food Inspector did not call two persons to be present at the time when he inspected the premises.

(3.) The learned Judge repelled the contention raised by the Public Prosecutor before him that the irregularity committed by the Food Inspector did not vitiate the trial, on the ground that he had committed illegality in not complying with the provisions of sec. 10(7) of the Act.