The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of strict compliance with the procedural requirements of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and Rules, particularly in relation to sampling and analysis procedures, the obligations of the Food Inspector and the Local Health Authority, and the rights of the accused under Section 13(2) of the Act.

The Food Inspector, Kallara panchayat in Nedumangad Circle, inspected a provision shop in building No. C-3 1099(2) adjoining a ration shop, A.R.D. 181 and situated within the limits of Kallara Panchayat, on 29-1-1981 at 1.30 p.m. and proceeded to purchase a sample of cumin seeds exhibited in the shop for sale, in accordance with the provisions of law. The accused sold the sample to the Food Inspector and after dealing with the sample in accordance with law, Ext. P-4 mahazar was prepared and got signed by the accused and the witnesses. One of the sample was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis and the rest sent to the Local Health Authority. The Public Analyst in Ext. P-7 report stated that the sample contained 78.2% cumin seeds, 13.5% of non-edible seeds and 8.3% of extraneous matter, including dust, stones, lumps of earth, chaff, etc. and therefore the sample did not conform to the standard prescribed for cumin seeds under item A.05.09 of Appendix B of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules (for short the 'Rules'). The Food Inspector laid the complaint against the accused for offences under Section 7(i) read with Section 16(i)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (for short the 'Act') and the local health authority concerned (hereinafter referred to as "L.H.A." for brevity) sent a copy of the report with intimation under Section 13(2) of the Act. Ext. P-8, to the accused, for the receipt of which the postal acknowledgment is Ext. P-9. In due course the trial court framed charges against the accused as aforesaid and he pleaded not guilty. Prosecution examined four witnesses and marked Exts. P-1 to P-10 series. On behalf of the defence two witnesses were examined. Overruling the contentions of the accused, the trial court convicted him for the offence alleged and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months. In Criminal Appeal No. 260 of 1981 preferred by the accused, the Sessions Court, Trivandrum acquitted him on the ground of violation of R. 18 of the rules.

2. On receipt of the Calendar by this Court, it was felt that the acquittal was contrary to law and therefore notice was issued to both sides informing them that the matter is being taken up in Calendar Revision. The prosecutor as well as the counsel for the accused have been heard.

3. There can be no doubt about the competency of the Food Inspector, P.W. 1 to take samples and to lay the complaint and the same is proved by P.W. 1 read in the light of Ext. P-1 notification. There could also be no doubt that the sample sent by the Food Inspector to the Public Analyst was caused to be analysed by the Public Analyst, who issued Ext. P-7 report. Ext. P-7 report indicates that the sample did not conform to the standard prescribed by the rules. Therefore, the sample must be treated as an adulterated sample within the meaning of Section 2(1a)(m) of the Act. The learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused on the ground that R. 18 of the Rules was violated.

4. R. 17 prescribes the manner in which one part of sample is to be despatched to the Public Analyst and the remaining parts of sample to be despatched to the L.H.A. The sample to be sent to the Public Analyst must be accompanied by a Memorandum in Form No. 7. Two copies of the Memorandum are also to be sent to the L.H.A. R. 18 requires that copy of the memorandum and the specimen impression of the seal used to seal the packet shall be sent to the Public Analyst separately by registered post or to be delivered to him or to any person authorised by him. The learned Sessions Judge pointed out that evidence of P.W. 1 on this point is not clear and when two views are possible, the benefit of doubt should go to the accused. This is directly contrary to the law as laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in Food Inspector v. Mohan (1979 Ker LT 560) : (1980 Cri LJ 521). Ext. P7 report shows