Back
1979 Supreme(Ker) 72
Judges : P.JANAKI AMMA
RAJAN - Appellant
Versus
STATE OE KERALA - Respondent
Case No : Crl.R.P. No. 86 of 1978
Decided On : 03/30/1979
Advocates Appeared :
Pirappancode V. Sreedharan Nair; V. N. Achuta Kurup; S. P. Aravindakshan Pillai; For Petitioner Public Prosecutor; For Respondent
The judgment emphasizes the importance of compliance with legal procedures for sample testing and the requirement of proof of unfitness of the article for human consumption in cases of adulteration.
Headnote:
Food Adulteration - Conviction under Prevention of Food Adulteration Act - S.16(1)(a)(1) read with S.7(1) - S.13(2) - S.2(i)(f) - S.17(1) - S.16(1)(a)(i)
Fact of the Case:
The Food Inspector purchased cumin seeds from the first petitioner's shop, which were found to be adulterated. The first petitioner filed a motion for sending the sample to the Director of Central Food Laboratory, who suspected tampering. The petitioners were convicted under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners were guilty of offences punishable under S.16(1)(a)(1) read with S.7(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The conviction and sentence were confirmed in appeal.
Issues: The issues raised included the legality of sending the sample to the Director of Central Food Laboratory, compliance with rules, and the requirement of evidence of injurious extraneous matter for sustaining a conviction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Act allowed the accused or the complainant to move the court for sending the sample for examination by the Director of Central Food Laboratory. It also ruled that the second report by the Director was admissible, especially when tampering was suspected. The court also emphasized that proof of unfitness of the article for human consumption is an essential ingredient of the definition of adulteration.
Final Decision: The revision petition failed, and the conviction was upheld.
1. The two accused in C. C. 76 of 1975 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ettumanoor are the revision petitioners.
2. At 11-30 A.M. on 17-12-1974, the Food Inspector, Kaduthurthy Panchayat purchased 600 grams of cumin seeds from the first petitioner who was conducting sales in shop No. K.III-12 of the Kaduthuruty panchayat. The sample was divided into three parts and was packed and sealed in three glass bottles. One of the bottles was entrusted to the first petitioner, the second bottle was sent to the Public Analyst, Trivandrum and the third bottle was retained with the Food Inspector for production in Court. The Public Analyst reported that the sample consisted of
Table:#1
As per the standard fixed for cumin seeds in Appendix B of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955-A. 05 09-the proportion of extraneous matter including dust, stones, lumps of earth, chaff, stem or straw shall not exceed 7.0 per cent by weight and the proportion of edible seeds other than cumin seeds shall not exceed 5.0 per cent by weight. The Public Analyst, therefore, reported that the sample sent was adulterated. The report is Ext P5. A complaint was, therefore, filed against the first petitioner. After the first petitioner entered appearance, a motion was made by the Food Inspector for impleading the second petitioner on the ground that the licence of the shop stood in his name. The second petitioner was thereafter made the 2nd accused in the case. After the trial began, the first petitioner filed an application under S.13 (2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act as it stood on the relevant date for sending the sample entrusted to him to the Director of Central Food Laboratory. On 13-5-1975, the Magistrate sent a requisition to the Director with the concerned sample. On examining the package, the Director suspected foul-play. He sent a confidential communication to the Magistrate on 12-6-1975 to the following effect:
"On examination of the package it has been found that the seals and the fastening of the sample package are very fresh and appears to have been performed recently. Further the sample superficially looks very excellent and well-cleaned. Such types of samples are usually not available in the market. Hence it is suspected that the contents may have been changed before sending the sample to the Laboratory. This is for your kind information. However, analysis is being done and the sample will be reported in due course."
The report of analysis was sent to the following effect on 1-7-1975: Table:2
Opinion: The sample of Cumin whole is suspected to be tampered with before sending to this laboratory. This had been intimated before the analysis was undertaken.
The report also stated that the seals were in tact. This report is marked Ext. D1.
3. On receipt of the above report, the Food Inspector made a motion for sending the third bottle containing the sample, which had been produced by him in Court to the Central Food Laboratory for a report of analysis. The court allowed the petition overruling the objection of the petitioners. The report of analysis was as follows:
Table:3
Opinion: The sample of Cumin whole is adulterated. The report is marked Ext. P8.
4. The trial court held on the basis of the above report that the petitioners were guilty of offences punishable under S.16 (1) (a) (1) read with S.7 (1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The petitioners were accordingly convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one day and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- each and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for four months each. The conviction and sentence were confirmed in appeal by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kottayam. The revision petition is filed challenging the above conviction and sentence.
5. The contention put forward on behalf of the petitioners is threefold. In the first place, it is argued that the trial court committed an illegality in sending the sample to the Direct
