Back
Kerala High Court
ANNA CHANDY
Food Inspector, Cannanore Municipality, Cannanore - Appellant
Versus
Pandavalappil Kannan - Respondent
Decided On : 06/25/1965
Food Adulteration - Appeal against Acquittal - Prevention of Food Adulteration Act - S. 16(1)(a), 16(2), S. 7 - Rule 7, Rule 18
Fact of the Case:
The Food Inspector appealed against the order of acquittal passed by the Sessions Judge. The accused was initially convicted under S. 16(1)(a) and 16(2) read with S. 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, but was later acquitted due to non-compliance with S. 10(7) of the Act. The High Court allowed the appeal and remanded the case to the Sessions Court. The appellant raised fresh grounds of attack against the order of conviction, including insufficient quantity of formalin added and improper compliance with Rules 7 and 18 of the Food Adulteration Rules.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence of the Food Inspector supported the purchase of the milk sample from the accused and the addition of formalin. However, the previous order of acquittal was maintained on the fresh ground of improper compliance with Rules 7 and 18 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.
Issues: The issues revolved around the compliance with Rules 7 and 18 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, specifically regarding the sealing and forwarding of the sample by the Food Inspector and the comparison of the seal by the Food Analyst.
Ratio Decidendi: The court refused to draw the presumption under S. 114(e) of the Evidence Act, holding that the presumption could not be extended to the actual performance of official acts. The court also considered conflicting decisions from other courts and emphasized the need for compliance with prescribed procedures.
Final Decision: The order of acquittal passed by the Sessions Judge was set aside, and the judgment of the District Magistrate convicting the accused under Ss. 16(1)(a) and 16(2) read with S. 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was restored. The accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000.
2. Rule 18 reads as follows :
"A copy of the memorandum and a specimen impression of the seal used to seal the packet shall be sent to the Public Analyst separately by registered post or delivered to him or to any person authorized by him." and Rule 7 enjoins that :
"(1) On receipt of a package containing a sample for analysis from Food Inspector or any other person, the Public Analyst or an officer authorised by him shall compare the seal on the container and the outer cover with specimen impression received separately and shall note the condition of the seals thereon.
(2) The Public Analyst shall cause to be analysed such sample of food as may be sent to him by the Food Inspector or by any other person under the Act.
(3) After the analysis has been completed he shall forthwith supply to the person concerned a report in Form III of the result of such analysis."
3. In the absence of evidence to hold that the sample seal was sent by the Food Inspector and was compared with the seal on the sample packet by the Analyst, the learned Sessions Judge held that those provisions were not complied with. The court refused to draw the presumption under S. 114(e) of the Evidence Act holding that the presumption could not be extended to the actual doing of the official acts but only to their performance in a regular manner. Observing that there are no decisions of the Kerala High Court on the point the learned Judge sought guidance from the decision reported in State of Gujarat v. Shantaben, 1964 (2) Cri LJ 32 : (AIR 1964 Guj 136).
4. It may be mentioned at the outset that there are the decisions of this Court in Mammu v. Food Inspector, Kuthupuramba Panchayat Board, Cri RP 41 of 1964 (Ker) as also Cri. Appeal No. 304 of 1964, State of Kerala v. Ramakrishnan Nair, 1965 KLT 402 where this Court differed from the view taken by the Gujarat Court and following the Division Bench decision in Municipal Board. Faizabad v. Lal Chand, AIR 1964 All 199 held that in a case where the Food Inspector gives evidence that the article was duly sealed and forwarded to the Public Analyst and there is also the report of the Analyst that the sample of
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
