Non-compliance with S.10(7) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 does not vitiate the action taken by the Food Inspector, but makes the evidence liable to more careful scrutiny. The report of the Public Analyst does not need to contain detailed data or reasons for the finding of adulteration.

1. The petitioner was convicted by the District Magistrate of Trichur in C. C. 177 of 1965 for an offence under S.16 (1) (a) (ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) read with S.7 (1) thereof, and sentenced to undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/. He filed Crl. Appeal 109 of 1965 before the Sessions Judge of Trichur who dismissed the appeal upholding the conviction, but reduced the sentence to three months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-. The petitioner has filed this revision petition against the aforesaid conviction and sentence.

2. The case against the petitioner was that the Food Inspector, who is pw.1 in this case, purchased from the petitioner, who is a trader within the Trichur Municipality, toor dhall on 16 31965 along with other articles of food, and on analysis by the public analyst, the toor dhall was found dyed with coal tar dyes and therefore adulterated. Ext. P-4 is the report of the public analyst. The conviction of the petitioner is based on this report. The petitioner's learned counsel contended that Ext. P-4 should not be acted on; and he raised three points in support of this contention. They are (1) the Food Inspector did not comply with the requirements of sub-sections (5) and (7) of S.10 of the Act, (2) there is no evidence that the public analyst complied with the requirements of R.7, and the Food Inspector complied with the requirements of R.17 and 18, of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) with regard to sample taken and sent for examination to the public analyst and (3) Ext. P-4 does not contain any data or the reasons for the finding that the sample analysed contained coal tar dye and was adulterated. These points may be considered in seriatim.

3. The second proviso to sub-section (5) of S.10 of the Act states that "the Food Inspector shall, in exercising the powers of entry upon, and inspection of any place under this section, follow, as far as may be, the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Act V of 1898) relating to the search or inspection of a place by a police-officer executing a search warrant issued under that Code". S.103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure relating to search, of which sub-sections (1) and (2) alone are relevant here, reads as follows:

"(1) Before making a search under this Chapter, the officer or other person about to make it shall call upon two or more respectable inhabitants of the locality in which the place to be searched is situated to attend and witness the search and may issue an order in writing to them or any of them so to do.

(2) The search shall be made in their presence, and a list of all things seized in the course of such search and of the places in which they are respectively found shall be prepared by such officer or other person and signed by such witnesses; but no person witnessing a search under this section shall be required to attend the Court as a witness of the search unless specially summoned by it."

4. It is contended that the Food Inspector, while entering into the petitioner's shop and purchasing the articles of food did not call upon person to attend and witness his entry into the shop and the purchasing of the articles. S.10 (7) of the Act reads as follows:

"Where the food inspector takes any action under clause (a) of sub-section (1), subsection (2), sub-section (4) or sub-section (6), he shall, call one or more persons to be present at the time when such action is taken and take his or their signatures."

It is stated that this provision of the Act was also violated by the Food Inspector. I agree with the petitioner's learned counsel that the above provisions of the Act are mandatory, and they are intended for the protection of the citizen from any false charge being levelled against him and to ensure that the Food Inspector acts properly and in accordance with law. But the submissio