STATE OF KERALA Vs. NEELAKANTAN DAMODARAN
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
STATE OF KERALA
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) The respondent in each of the petitions has been convicted under S.7(1) read with S.16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (Central Act 37 of 1954) hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' and the respondent in the first of the two petitions was released on admonition under S.3, and the respondent in the other petition was released on probation of good conduct under S.4, of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (Central Act 20 of 1958), without awarding any sentence. The State has filed these two revision petitions questioning the impropriety and illegality of the order.
(2.) The Food Inspector in the first case purchased gingelly oil from the respondent and it was found to be adulterated on analysis by the Public Analyst. The purchase of gingelly oil, the procedure adopted by the Food Inspector in sampling and the final result of the analysis by the Public Analyst were not disputed. On analysis it was found that the standard of the sample of gingelly oil was not in conformity with the standard prescribed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. 1955. Under Rule A.17.11 of the Rules, the Butyro refractometer reading at 40%C shall be 58.0 to 61.0 while the sample in question was found to be 54.2. Under the same Rule, saponification value shall be 188 to 193. But the sample showed 203.5. The Iodine value should have been 105 to 115 under the Rule, but the sample showed 87.4. Apart from these variations there was also the additional circumstance that the admixture contained 19 per cent of coconut oil. The Trial Court was therefore correct in holding that the respondent is guilty of the offence under S.7(1) read with S.16(1)(a)(i) of the Act.
(3.) In the other case the article of food was tea infusion, which, on analysis, was found to contain coal tar dye which was identified as Orange 11 (Colour Index 151). Under R.29(g) of the Rules, addition of coal tar dye to the tea beverage is prohibited. In this case also it was not disputed that the Food Inspector purchased the article of food in question, that he followed the correct procedure in sampling and that the Public Analyst gave his opinion in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder. It can therefore be held that the respondent in this case has correctly been convicted under S.7(1) read with S.16(1)(a)(i) of the Act,;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.