P UNNIKRISHNAN Vs. FOOD INSPECTOR PALGHAT MUNICIPALITY PALGHAT KERALA STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was tried for an offence under Section 7(1) read with Section 16(1A) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act ('Act' for short). It is alleged that the Food Inspector, Palghat (PW3) purchased from the accused a sealed tin containing 100 grams of arrow root for the purpose of analysis and the Public Analyst found it to be adulterated. The accused took the plea that a representation of M/s. Tajus Productions, a firm located in Cannanore about 200 kms. from the place of the accused came to his shop and sold the article and he also pleaded that he has a bill Ex. D1 which has the necessary warranty signed by the representative- of the said firm. He put forth the defence under Section 19(2) of the Act. Accepting the plea, the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused.

(2.) The State preferred an appeal and the High Court after taking into consideration the evidence of PW1, Food Inspector, Cannanore and PW3, the complainant reached the conclusion that the said firm was a bogus non-existing manufacturing firm and therefore the accused was not able to prove that he is entitled to the benefit under Section 19(2) of the Act and accordingly reversed the order of acquittal and convicted the appellant. It may be mentioned here that the prosecution, however, examined PW 1 the then Food Inspector, Cannanore and he deposed that he made enquiries and came to know that the firm by the name M/s. Tajus Productions does not exist at Cannanore and accordingly he informed PW3.

(3.) Section 19(2) of the Act lays down as under: