Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : G.RADHA KRISHNA RAO
G.Satyanarayana, Food Inspector - Appellant
Versus
Voolla Malibabu - Respondent
Decided On : 07-21-88
PROVISO 2 - Rule 8 of the prevention of Food Adulteration Rules 11955 - The appellant, a qualified Sanitary inspector with the required experience, was eligible for appointment as Food Inspector despite not fulfilling the qualifications laid down in Clauses (a) to (c). The lower court's finding that the appellant had not acquired the requisite qualification to take the samples as Food Inspector was set aside.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a qualified Sanitary inspector, was appointed as a Food Inspector and had acquired sufficient experience as required under the proviso. The lower court's finding that the appellant had not acquired the requisite qualification to take the samples as Food Inspector was set aside.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant was eligible for appointment as a Food Inspector despite not fulfilling the qualifications laid down in Clauses (a) to (c). The lower court's conclusion that Rule 14 had not been complied with and there was no sufficient proof to show that A-3 was the owner of the shop was not interfered with.
Issues: The issues revolved around the appellant's eligibility for appointment as a Food Inspector and the compliance with Rule 14, as well as the ownership of the shop by A-3.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of PROVISO 2 of Rule 8 of the prevention of Food Adulteration Rules 11955, which allowed a person with the required experience to be eligible for appointment as a Food Inspector despite not fulfilling certain qualifications. The court also considered the lack of sufficient proof to establish the ownership of the shop by A-3.
Final Decision: The criminal appeal was partly allowed, and no costs were imposed.
( 1 ) PROVISO 2 of Rule 8 of the prevention of Food Adulteration Rules 11955 reads as follows:"provided further that a person who is a qualified Sanitary inspector having experience as such for a minimum period of one year and has received at least three months training in whole or in parts in food inspection and sampling work, may be eligible for appointment as Food Inspector, upto the period ending on the 31st March, 1985, and may continue as such if so appointed even though he does not fulfil the qualifications laid down in Clauses (a) to (c)".
( 2 ) ON a reading of the proviso with reference to Exs, P-1, P-2 and p-3, it is clear that the appellant has got the required experiance to act as a food Inspector. More-over, his appointment as a Food Inspector was on 26-2-82. The sample was taken in March, 1983. Even by that date he has acquired sufficient experience as required under the proviso. The finding of the Lower Court that he has not acquired the requisite qualification to take the samples as Food Inspector is not correct and that finding is set aside. PW 1 is a compatent Food Inspector as on the date of the seizure in march, 1983.
( 3 ) THE Lower Court arrived at the conclusion that Rule 14 has not been complied with and there is no sufficient proof to show that A-3 is the owner of the shop. I do not find any reason to interfere with his acquittal.
( 4 ) THE Crl. Appeal is partly allowed. No costs.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
