The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, regarding the sale, storage, and distribution of adulterated food, as well as the requirements for prosecution and analysis of food samples.

B. M. KALAGATE, J.

( 1 ) FIRST petitioner Laxman Sitaram Pai is the Manager and Second Petitioner Venkatesh Bhiku pai is the Proprietor of the hotel known as 'madhavashram' in house No. 3441, College Road, belgaum. The two petitioners were the accused in C. C. No. 3752 of 1964 in the Court of the judicial Magistrate, First Class, Belgaum City, and the charge against them was that they have committed an offence punishable under Section 1 (3 (1) (a) (i) read with Section 7 of the prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The complaint was filed against the petitioners by the Belgaum Borough Municipality by its Prosecutor Shri D. S. Sadre.

( 2 ) P. W. 1 Shri Umar is a Food Inspector of Belgaum Municipality and it is the case of the prosecution that on 8-9-1964 the Food Inspector Mr. Umar went to the tea shop of the accused known as "madhavashram' to take sample of milk at about 7 a. m. , he found two vessels containing 15 seers of milk in one and 10 seers of milk in the other in the kitchen; the Inspector demanded 660 milli-litres of cold milk from accused No. 1 and accused No. 1 sold the same and took 45 paise only as its price; the Food Inspector obtained a receipt for having paid 45 Paise from accused No. 1; he also took in writing from him that the milk purchased by him was buffalo milk; then, in accordance with the Rules framed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, he gave due notice to accused No. 1 stating that he would send the sample of milk to the public Analyst for analysis; he then divided the sample into three equal parts, took three empty, clean and dry bottles and fllied them with these three parts of the sample; he also added formalin into these bottles and then sealed, labelled and numbered the bottles giving the sample No. 351; the Inspector then sent the second bottle to the Public Analyst, Bangalore for analysis with a memorandum' containing the specimen seal with which the bottles had been sealed; the result of analysis as certified by the Public Analyst showed that the sample sent is adulterated. It is on these facts that the two petitioners were proseeuteted for the offences stated above.

( 3 ) THE two accused in their defence stated that Madhavashram is a tea shop which, sells only tea and coffee and milk is not sold to customers in the shop but is kept only for preparing tea and coffee. They also denied that they received 45 paise from the Food Inspector P. W. 1 as the price of the milk. They contended that it was P. W. 1 himself who placed 45 paise on the table and obtained the receipt from them. Thus, they denied that they have committted the offences with which they have been charged.

( 4 ) THE learned Magistrate found that the milk is not only stored in the hotel but it is sold in the shop. He further found that the two petitioners have sold the milk to P. W. 1. the Food Inspector. On these findings he found the accused guilty under Section 16 (1) (a) (i) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced each of them, to pay a fine of Rs. 300, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month.

( 5 ) THE petitioners preferred an appeal in the Court of the Sessions Judge, Belgaumi against the said order of conviction and sentence. The learned Sessions Judge confirmed1 the order of conviction and sentence passed' against the petitioners and dismissed the appeal and it is the correctness of the order of confirmation of conviction and sentence passed against them that is being challenged in this revision petition by Miss Anasuya, the learned Counsel for the petitioners.

( 6 ) BEFORE the learned Sessions Judge it was contended for the accused-petitioners that there was no proper authorisation to prosecute the petitioners. It was also contended that Ex. 17 which is a report of the Public Analyst has no evidentiary value since there has been no due compliance with Rules 7 and 18 of the rules framed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document