VARGHESE Vs. FOOD INSPECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is the second accused. He is manufacturer of coffee chicory mixture which was purchased by the Food Inspector from the first accused for analysis. First accused, the vendor of the article of food to the Food Inspector, was acquitted under S.19(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (for short 'the Act'). After appreciating the evidence in this case learned Magistrate convicted the petitioner for offence under S.16(1)(a)(i) read with S.7(1) and S.2(ia)(a) of the Act and A.08.03 of Appendix-B of Rule 5 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. He was thereupon sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In default of payment of fine he was directed to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. He challenged the conviction and sentence in appeal without success. Hence this revision petition.

(2.) The short facts of the case can be stated as follows : Food Inspector, Kodungallor Municipality visited the grocery shop of first accused. After introducing himself, he gave Form VI notice and demanded 500 gms of coffee chicory mixture from the stock kept for sale. First accused gave ten packets of coffee chicory mixture containing 50 gms each. Food Inspector opened the packets and mixed the contents. Then divided the quantity into three equal parts and filled it in three clean dry bottles and sampled the same in accordance with the rules. A mahazar was also prepared narrating the various steps taken by the Food Inspector. One of the samples was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis, by registered parcel. Form VII memorandum and specimen impression of the seal used to seal the sample were separately sent to the Public Analyst by registered post. The remaining two samples were sent to the Local (Health) Authority together with Form VII memorandum and specimen impression of the seal used to seal the sample. Public Analyst found the sample to be adulterated. He sent Form III report dt. 28-4-1983. On getting the report prosecution was launched. Notice under S.13(2) together with copy of Form III report was sent to the accused. Accused applied to court to send one sample to the Central Food Laboratory for analysis. Director of Central Food Laboratory issued certificate in Form II. It also showed the sample to be adulterated.

(3.) The packets purchased from the first accused contained identical label declaration. First accused also produced the bill under which he purchased the coffee chicory mixture from the manufacturer. The bill and the identical label declaration gave the name of the second accused as the manufacturer of the coffee chicory mixture. Therefore the Food Inspector could send all notices as required by the Act and Rules to the second accused. During the trial second accused was impleaded as per S.20A of the Act.