CHINNASAMY Vs. FOOD INSPECTOR, PERUNDURAI TOWN PANCHAYAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed by the accused in C.C. No. 196 of 1976 on the file of the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Erode against the judgment made in C.A. No. 295 of 1976 on the file of the Court of Session, Coimbatore East Division, confirming the conviction under S.16(1)(b) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months, passed by the trial magistrate.

(2.) THE facts of the case which led to the prosecution, are as follows: On 3rd March 1976, at about 6 p.m. near the bus stand at Perundurai, the revision petitioner brought 50 litres of milk in a can on a cycle, to be supplied to the tea shop of P.W. 2. The Food Inspector of Perundurai Town Panchayat, examined as P.W. 1, demanded the accused to give a sample of milk for the purpose of analysis; but the accused, without giving the sample to P.W. 1, went inside the tea shop with the milk can and poured the milk into a vessel kept inside the shop, in which milk had already been stored (apparently purchased from some other milk vendors). Thereafter, the accused placed the empty can in front of the tea shop of P.W. 2, and left that place. P.W. 1 narrates the entire incident and states that he has been prevented from taking samples from the accused. The evidence of P.W. 1 is amply corroborated by P.W. 2, who is the tea shop owner. M.O. 1 is the empty can seized by P.W. 1 from the tea stall.

(3.) IN the present revision petition' Mr. Sundar Anandam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, raises two contentions, viz. -(1) That the judgment of the lower appellate court confirming the conviction without independently going into and finding the presence of the necessary ingredients constituting the alleged offence irrespective of the question whether the conviction was challenged or not, amounts to gross irregularity in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, and hence its judgment has to be set aside. (2) The ingredients necessary to constitute an offence under S.16(1)(b) of the Act, are absolutely lacking as there is no sufficient evidence for holding that the accused prevented P.W. 1, from taking the sample, and therefore, on this ground too the conviction has to be set aside.