The mandatory provisions of Section 10 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, relating to search and seizure, were interpreted and applied by the court to determine the validity of the food inspector's actions in purchasing and analyzing the turmeric sample.

G.N.Prasad, J.

1. This is an appeal by the Municipal Corporation of Patna in a case instituted upon its complaint. It is directed against the acquittal of the respondent of an offence alleged to have been committed by him under Sec.16(1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (Act No. 37 of 1954). 1954

2. The following facts which appear from the evidence adduced by the prosecution are not In dispute before me. Matiur Rah man (P W 1) was the food inspector of the Corporation On the 31st March, 1961, he visited the Kirana shop of one Ramlakhan Singh situated on the Bari Path at Patna and known as Magadh Kirana Store. He was accompanied by two jamadars of the corporation Hasan Abbas (P. W 2) and Brajendra Pd. Sharma (P W 3). At that time, the respondent was conducting the sales in the shop The food Inspector gave a written notice to the respondent of his intention to purchase a sample of turmeric (Haldi) for analysis. Thereafter he took six chhataks of turmeric from the respondent on payment to him of 0.47 nP. as its price and took receipt. Exhibit 3, from him. Thereafter he divided the article into three parts and put them in three separate phials He sealed all the three phials and took the signatures of the respondent and of P. Ws 2 and 3 on all of them He also put his own signature thereon He then made over one of the sealed phials to the respondent; and out of the remaining two phials he subsequently sent one to the public analyst and retained the other in his custody. The report of the public analyst, Exhibit 5, which is dated the 6th May, 1981, disclosed that the sample in question was adulterated, inasmuch as it contained twenty parts per million of lead instead of the prescribed standard of not more than 2.5 parts per million. The matter was reported to the Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation and ultimately a complaint was filed in court For the prosecution of the respondent.

3. The respondent tried to show that he was not a sales-man of the shop and that he was led to put his signature on certain papers under pres sure brought to bear upon him by the food inspector. He also took the plea that turmeric was not merely an article of food but also used for dying cloths.

4. The learned trying Magistrate came to the conclusion that the respondent was the salesman in the shop at the relevant time and he had sold the sample of turmeric to the food inspector and taken its price from him He further held that the sample was adulterated, but he acquitted the respondent holding that the rood inspector (P. W 1) had not complied with the mandatory provision relating to search as provided in Sec.10 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). According to learned Magistrate, before taking the sample, the food inspector should also have given his own search and taken the search of the other two witnesses P. Ws. 2 and 3) so as to obviate any chance of any adulteration being made by the food inspector him self.

5. The whole question is whether the view taken by the learned Magistrate is in accord with the relevant provision of the Act.

6. Under sub-section (1) of Sec.10 of the Act a food inspector has power to take samples of any article of food from any person selling such article and to send such sample for analysis to the public analyst. But in view of the provision in Sec.11 of the Act before proceeding to take a sample of food for analysis, he must give notice in writing then and there of his intention to have it analysed, to the person from whom he has taken the sample The evidence of P. W 1 clearly shows that he had given such a written notice to the respondent. It is true that a copy of the said notice, which P. W 1 had retained with himself, has not been brought on the record; but merely on that ground I do not see any reason to disbelieve the statement made by P. W 1 on oath in court.

7. The fact that the food inspector had paid the price of the sample to the respond