The main legal point established in the judgment is that the absence of personal complaints against the accused, the lack of territorial jurisdiction for trying the offence, and the failure to follow proper procedures for joining co-accused rendered the conviction unsustainable.

1. The petitioners Sri. M.N. Adhikari, Manager, M/s Rashid Jamshed Sons & Co., Madurai and P.P. Pappachan, Partner, P.V. Poulose Sons, Kunnamkulam were found guilty and convicted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kunnamkulam for an offence under S.16 (1)(a)(i) read with S.7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The first petitioner was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 6 months and the second petitioner was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 10/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two weeks. Their appeal to the Sessions Judge of Trichur having proved unsuccessful they have come up in revision to this court.

2. The fasts that led up to the prosecution may be briefly stated:

On 20-3-62 at about 6-30 p.m. Pw.1 the Food Inspector of Kunnamkulam Municipality visited the shop of P.V. Poulose Sons, General Merchants, Kunnamkulam and found sealed tins of T.T. Asafoetida stored and exposed for sale. He purchased, out of the stock, 6 sealed tins, paid the price to the second petitioner and obtained the receipt Ext. P-1. Notice in Form No. VI Ext. P-2 was served on him intimating that it was intended for analysis. It was then duly sampled and sealed and one part was given to the second petitioner and he has acknowledged the receipt of the sample in Ext. P3. One of the packets was sent to the Public Analyst as sample No. 125 along with a memorandum in Form No. 7. Ext. P-7 is the mahazar prepared by the Food Inspector and it was attested by Pw. 2 and another witness, who were present at the time of purchase and sampling. After analysis the Public Analyst sent the certificate Ext. P5 stating that the alcoholic extract (with 90% alcohol) was only 7.3% & as it was sub standard it must be deemed to be adulterated. On receipt of the report of the Public Analyst the Food Inspector made a report to the Municipal Council and the Council after perusing the report of the Food Inspector, the Analyst's report and the connected papers and being satisfied granted the necessary permission to the Food Inspector to launch the prosecution against the firm Rashid Jamshed Sons and Co., and (2) against P.P. Pappachan the partner of P.V. Foulose Sons who had actually effected the sale. In pursuance of that authority the Food Inspector filed the complaint. The complaint, however, was filed against (1) Rashid Jamshed Sons & Co., represented by its manager M.N. Adhikari; and (2) P.V. Poulose Sons, General Merchants represented by its partner P.P. Pappachan.

The Food Inspector and the attesting witness to the mahazar were examined on the side of the prosecution. Questioned under S.342 Cr. P.C. the first petitioner stated that he is not the manufacturer, but he is only the manager of the Madurai Branch of the Company. The second petitioner admitted the sale and stated that they had got the asafoetida from Rashid Jamshed Sons & Company, that they had a letter of guarantee and that they were not guilty of the offence charged. On a consideration of the evidence led in the case the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate convicted the first petitioner

M.N. Adhikari to pay a fine of or Rs. 1000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months. Similarly the second petitioner Pappachan was found guilty and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 10/- or in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two weeks.

3. In the calendar and judgment of the learned Magistrate and the learned Sessions Judge produced before me the first accused is shown as M.N. Adhikarj and the second accused is shown as P. P. Pappachan. They have each been individually convicted and sentenced to pay a fine and in default ordered to suffer imprisonment. Wherefrom the courts below got the idea that the petitioners were the accused, I am unable to see. There was, in fact, no complaint against M.N. Adhikari or Pappachan personally. The complaint was only against the respective companies. Under S.17 of the