HAFISA Vs. FOOD INSPECTOR ERNAKULAM
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
FOOD INSPECTOR, ERNAKULAM
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) This is an application for revising an order passed by the District Magistrate, Ernakulam, on a petition filed by the complainant on 19-7-1966 in C. C. No. 394 of 1967 under S.13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, hereinafter referred to as the Act.
(2.) The revision petitioners are the accused in the case. The complaint was that they committed offences punishable under S.16(1)(a)(i) and (ii) of the Act in that they have sold lac dhall or kesari dhall. Pw. I after purchasing the dhall and dividing it into three parts sent one part to the Public Analyst. The report of the Public Analyst is Ext P6. In the report the Public Analyst found:
"................... I further certify that I have caused to be analysed the aforementioned sample, and declare the result of the analysis to be as follows:
Microscopic examination: The dhall is axe shaped.
Microscopic examination (i) The starch granules are round, irregular, the hilum is prominent and the branching of the hilum and striations are not prominent, (ii) The palisade sells of the testa are macroscleriods (rod shaped) with branched lumen and with lateral branches (pits) and am of the opinion that the said sample consists of lac dhall otherwise known as Kesari dhall (Lathyrus Sativus). The sale of lac dhall (Lathyrus Sativus) under any description is prohibited on account of the fact that its consumption is injurious to public health."
After the prosecution evidence was closed, the accused applied for examining the Public Analyst and the Analyst was examined as Dw. 1. Thereafter when the defence evidence was over, the complainant applied under S.13(2) of the Act for sending the sample of dhall retained by him, for examination by the Director of Central Food Laboratory for the reason that a better analysis of the sample is necessary in the interest of justice. That application was opposed by the accused on the ground that it is belated. They contended that the prosecution knew from Ext. P6 certificate the nature of the analysis conducted by the Public Analyst and if they wanted the sample to be analysed by the Director of Central Food Laboratory they should have applied for that purpose before the prosecution evidence was closed, and that the accused would be prejudiced if the application is allowed at this late stage.
(3.) The learned Magistrate overruled the objection and allowed the application by the order under revision.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.