IMPORTANT POINT
It is dangerous to convict the accused on the basis of report sent by the Analyst in respect of food sample take by a person who had admitted, no training to take the sample of food article.

JUDGMENT

Maheswaran, J - This appeal by the State is preferred against the judgment of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ariyalur, acquitting the accused respondent who was charged for an offence under sections 7(i) and 16(1)(a)(i) read with sections 2(ia)(a) and (m) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

2. On 29th March, 1983 at about 7 a.m. P.W. 2, who is the Food Inspector of Perambalur. Town Panchayat, intercepted the accused-respondent who was carrying milk in a vessel in a cycle on the N.S.C. Bose Road, Perambalur and he purchased from him 750 ml of mixture of cow's and buffalo's milk for Rs. 1.50. He divided it into three equal parts and after observing all the formalities, sealed them in three clean dry bottles and sent one bottle to the Public Analyst for analysis. The report of the Public Analyst shows that the sample is deficient in solids non fat to the extent of at least 14 per cent and that the sample is also deficient in fat to the extent of at least 15 per cent After receipt of this report., the Food Inspector laid the complaint.

3. The defence was one of total denial. The learned trial Magistrate acquitted the accused on two grounds: (1) that the Food Inspector who took the sample did not have the requisite training; and (2) that the report of the Analyst does not contain the date of analysis of the sample. The State challenges the judgment acquitting the accused.

4. The area of controversy is limited in scope. The Food Inspector; P.W. 2, has categorically admitted in his evidence that for taking sample, he did not undergo any training, but he is working as a Food Inspector from 18th February, 1966 onwards. It is contended by the learned Government Advocate appearing for the State that even though R. 8 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 provided qualifications for the Food Inspector, the last proviso to R. 8 does not disqualify P.W. 2 to be a Food Inspector. The proviso on which reliance is placed by the learned Government Advocate runs thus:

"provided also that nothing in this rule shall be construed to disqualify any person who is a Food Inspector on the commencement of the Prevention of Food Adulteration (Amendment) Rules, 1980 from continuing as such after such commencement."

Mr. T. S. Arunachalam, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, pointed out that this Food Inspector having not been trained even to take sample, is not competent to take sample of the food article; Even a reading of the proviso shows that a Food Inspector has to be duly qualified for being appointed as such. R.8 prescribes the qualifications and runs thus:

"A person shall not be qualified for appointment as Food Inspector unless he-

(a) is a Medical Officer in charge of health administration of a local area; or

(b) is a graduate in medicine and has received at least one month's training in food inspection and sampling work approved for the purpose by the Central Government or a State Government; or

(c) is a Graduate in Science with Chemistry as one of the subjects or is a Graduate in Agriculture or Public Health or Pharmacy or in Veterinary Science or a Graduate in Food Technology or Dairy Technology or is a Diploma Holder in Food Technology or Dairy Technology from a University or Institution established in India by law or has equivalent qualifications recognised and notified by the Central Government for the purpose and has received three months satisfactory training in food inspection and sampling work under a Food (Health) Authority or in an Institution approved for the purpose by the Central Government:

Provided that the training in food inspection and sampling work obtained prior to the commencement of R 5 of Prevention of Food Adulteration (Fourth Amendment) Rules 1976, in any of the laboratories under the control of

(i) a Public Analyst appointed under the Act; or

(ii) a Fellow of the Royal Institute of Chemistry of Great Britain (Branch E); or

(iii) any Director, Central Food