Back
1987 Supreme(Ker) 129
Judges : K.G.BALAKRISHNAN,M.FATHIMA BEEVI
Food Inspector - Appellant
Versus
V.Velayudhan And Etc. - Respondent
Case No : Criminal Appeals Nos. 235 of 1983 and 243 of 1983
Decided On : 03/17/1987
Advocates Appeared :
For the Appellant: K. J. Joseph, Advocate. For the Respondent: P. N. K. Achan, K. Vijayan and M. N. Sukumaran Nayar, Advocates.
The importance of complying with statutory provisions and the presumption of regularity in official acts.
Headnote:
Food Adulteration - Acquittal Challenged - Prevention of Food Adulteration Act - S. 13(2), R. 17 - The court discussed the mandatory provisions of S. 13(2) and R. 17 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, emphasizing that non-compliance may lead to serious consequences and prejudice to the accused. The court clarified that the accused must prove total non-compliance to claim prejudice. The court also highlighted the importance of complying with the statutory provisions and the presumption of regularity in official acts.
Fact of the Case:
The accused were acquitted in two cases of food adulteration. The appeals challenged the acquittal based on non-compliance with statutory provisions.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the non-compliance with S. 13(2) and R. 17 did not cause prejudice to the accused. It also held that the appointment of the Local Health Authority was valid and the prosecution was maintainable. The court further found that the accused had violated the P.F.A. Act and sentenced them accordingly.
Issues: Non-compliance with statutory provisions, validity of appointment of Local Health Authority, and violation of the P.F.A. Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the accused must prove total non-compliance to claim prejudice. It also highlighted the presumption of regularity in official acts and the importance of complying with statutory provisions.
Final Decision: The appeals were allowed, and the accused were found guilty of violating the P.F.A. Act.
BALAKRISHNAN, J.
Crl. Appeals Nos. 235 of 1983 and 243 of 1983 have been filed challenging the acquittal of the accused in S.T.C. 76 of 1982 and 32 of 1982 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palghat. Common ground have been urged in both these appeals and hence they were heard together.
2. In S.T.C. 76 of 1982 the complainant, Food Inspector, Palghat Municipality, purchased 600 grams of coffee-chicory blend from the accused on 6-10-1982. The accused had been conducting 'Metro Coffee Works' in the building bearing door No. 1/418 within the Palghat Municipality. The Food Inspector after complying with the necessary formalities sent the sample to the Public Analyst. Ext. P. 13 report of the Public Analyst dated 16-11-1982 showed that the sample did not conform to the standard prescribed for coffee-chicory blend and was therefore adulterated. Ext. P 15 intimation under S. 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was sent to the accused on 2-12-1982 itself and the same is seen acknowledged by Ext. P 16 document on 4-12-1982. The complaint against the accused was filed on 2-12-1982.
3. In S.T.C. 32 of 1982 the Food Inspector, Palghat purchased 750 ml. of cow's milk from the accused on 8-6-1982. The sample was forwarded to the Public Analyst for analysis and the Public Analyst reported that the sample did not conform to the standard prescribed for cow's milk under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules 1955 and therefore it was adulterated. The complainant received the report of the Public Analyst and filed the complaint in court against the accused on 9-7-1982. Ext. P 14 is the intimation issued to the accused under S. 13(2) of the P.F.A. Act. Ext. P 14 intimation dated 7-7-1982 is seen to have been received by the accused on 10-7-1982 as per Ext. P 16 acknowledgment.
4. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palghat acquitted the accused in both cases mainly on three grounds : 1) Intimation under S. 13(2) of the P.F.A. Act did not contain the case number filed against the accused and therefore there was infraction of S. 13(2) of the Act and the accused was seriously prejudiced. 2) There was no valid appointment of Local Health Authority and therefore the prosecution was not maintainable and 3) The Food Inspector had not complied with the formalities prescribed in R. 17 of the P.F.A. Rules.
5. Both these cases have been referred to the Division Bench by the learned single Judge to resolve the apparent conflict between the two decisions of this Court reported in V. J. Paul v. Ibrahim, 1982 Cri LJ NOC 30 and State of Kerala v. Soman, 1983 Ker LT 297 : (1984 Cri LJ 567). In V. J. Paul's case the single Judge of this Court held:
"The person from whom the sample a taken will be in a position to exercise the right to have the sample analysed only on receipt of the information regarding the fact of filing the complaint and the particulars like the court when it is filed and the number of the case. Therefore the supply of the information mentioned in S. 13(2) of the Act is not an empty formality. It is a mandatory provision the non-compliance of which may lead to serious consequences."
In the case reported in State of Kerala v. Soman, 1983 Ker LT 297 : (1984 Cri LJ 567) this court held that the failure to state the number of the case in the intimation does not amount to the infraction of S. 13(2) of the Act. A similar question came up for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court in Food Inspector v. Karingarappully Co. Op. M. S. Society Ltd., 1986 Ker LT 174 : (1986 Cri LJ 719). The Division Bench held :
"S. 13(2) & R. 9A are only directory. Of course, this provision of law must be obeyed; it is not left to the sweet will and pleasure of the statutory authority to obey the provision or not. The statutory authority has to discharge its functions as contemplated by law. Where there is a total denial of the right on account of the deliberate conduct of the statutory authority, where the effect of noncompl
