The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of R.22-A, the meaning of 'sealed containers' and 'identical label declaration', and the acceptability of expert opinion under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

1. Criminal Appeal No.246 of 1986 is filed by the Food Inspector of Tellicherry Municipality against the judgment of acquittal in C.C.No.110 of 1983 on the file of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Tellicherry. Criminal R.P.No.444 of 1987 is filed by the first accused in C.C.No.127 of 1984 on the file of the same court against the conviction and sentence entered against him by the magistrate which has been confirmed by the Sessions Judge in appeal. Criminal R.P. No.464 of 1987 is filed by the accused in C.C.No.225 of 1983 of the same court against the conviction and sentence entered against him which has been confirmed by the Sessions Court in Crl. Appeal No.293 of 1985. The Criminal Appeal and the Revision Petitions have been referred to Division bench by the learned single judges who heard the cases. Reference order in Crl. Appeal No.246 of 1986 doubts the correctness of the decisions in Food Inspector v. Jose (1987 (2) KLT. 190) and Food Inspector v. Vidhyadharan (1987 (1) KLT 414). The revisions have been referred to Division Bench since they involve the same questions.

2. C.C.No.110 of 1983 arose out of a complaint filed by the Food Inspector against the accused therein, trader in spices and condiments doing business in the name "T.M. Masala Works". On 19-4-1983 Food Inspector in accordance with law purchased sample of 600 grams of corainder powder exhibited for sale in the shop. The article was in packets containing 100 grams each. Six packets were purchased and the packets were divided into three parts and treated as parts of the sample. In due course the Public Analyst who received the sample part from the Food Inspector sent Ext.P12 report opining that the sample did not conform to the standards prescribed in the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules (for short'the Rules') for corainder powder and therefore was adulterated. At the instance of the accused another pan of the sample consisting of two packets was sent by the court to the Director of Central Food Laboratory and he submitted Ext.C-1 report indicating that the part of the sample was adulterated as it did not conform to the standards prescribed in the Rules. The trial court acting on the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and partly on the evidence of P.W.3, hostile witness, held that Food Inspector did purchase 600 grams of coriander powder from the accused. The trial court was of the opinion that the Food Inspector purported to follow the procedure prescribed in R.22-A of the Rules and did not open the packets or mix the contents before dividing the sample into three parts. The trial court held that R.22-A would not apply since the packets are not "sealed containers", but only closed containers and therefore R.22-A could not have been followed. Accordingly the accused was given the benefit of doubt and acquitted following the decision of a learned single judge of this court in State of Kerala v. Balakrishnan (1972 KLT 964). The acquittal is now challenged in the appeal.

3. C.C.No.127 of 1984 arose out of a complaint filed by the Food Inspector against the first accused who was a grocery shop keeper and the second accused, the alleged supplier of the article to the first accused. The Food Inspector purchased 300 grams of coffee-chicory in six separate packets, opened the packets, mixed the contents and divided the same into three equal parts. One part on analysis by the Public Analyst was found to be adulterated as it did not conform to the standards prescribed for coffee chicory in the Rules. The court acquitted the second accused on the ground that there is no evidence to show that the article purchased by the Food Inspector had been sold to the first accused by the second accused. However, the court accepted the prosecution case regarding the first accused and convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for another six months. Th