CITY CORPORATION OF TRIVANDRUM Vs. RAMA IYER
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
CITY CORPORATION OF TRIVANDRUM
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) The Food Inspector of Trivandrum Corporation has filed this appeal against the order passed by the Additional First Class Magistrate acquitting the respondent (accused) who had been prosecuted for an offence under S.16 read with S.7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
(2.) On 28th November 1962 Pw. 1 one of the Food Inspectors of the Trivandrum Corporation visited the godown of the accused and found Thuvara dhall stored and exposed for sale. On suspicion that it was Kesari dhall the entire quantity was seized and sample was taken after complying with all the formalities. This fact is not disputed. Pw. 2 the Public Analyst has given evidence and proved the certificate Ex. P 4. He has stated that the sample consisted of lac dhall otherwise known as Kesari dhall or lathyrus sativus and is therefore adulterated.
(3.) The main defence of the accused was that the dhall found in the godown had been purchased from Dw. 1 and is supported by a written warranty. Dw. 1 was examined in support of this case. He is a merchant at Chalai and he claims to be a commission agent of M/s. Rambal Poonachand Godarwala in Madhya Pradesh. He has sworn that in November, 1962 he had received a consignment of thuvara dhall from the company under invoice No. 3 dated 2nd November 1962 and that he took delivery of the consignment on 25-11-1962. As he had lost the original railway receipt he has produced a duplicate receipt obtained by him from the Madura Office regarding the payment of the railway charges. He has given evidence that out of the consignment he had sold 16 bags of thuvara dhall to the accused, that the accused demanded a warranty and he intimated the company and a warranty Ex. D 1, dated 27th November 1962 was sent to the accused by the company. He has admitted that along with the sale no warranty was given and Ex. D 1 does not show that it related to the 221 bags taken delivery of by him and sold to the accused. If Dw. 1 had really sold 16 bags out of the stock received by him he should certainly have some documents to evidence the transaction. It is not known why the signatory in Ex. D 1 is not examined. On this evidence the learned Magistrate found that the accused was protected by the warranty and acquitted him. The correctness of the decision is challenged by the appellant.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.