KERALA HIGH COURT
, J
FOOD INSPECTOR v. USMAN
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. prosecution for food adulteration based on inspector's findings. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. legislation aims to protect public health against adulteration. (Para 7 , 10) |
| 3. importance of compliance in procedural rules for food analysis. (Para 14 , 16) |
| 4. conviction and sentencing for violations established. (Para 17 , 18 , 19) |
1 Appellant is the Food Inspector, Tellicherry Municipality. He prosecuted the two respondents before the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Tellicherry in S.T.C. No. 139/79 for possession and sale of adulterated pan supari punishable under S.16(1)(a)(i) and (ii) read with S.7(i) and (v) and 2(1a)(a) and (b) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and Rules made thereunder as amended. First accused is the vendor and second accused was impleaded as the warrantor. Trial Court acquitted both of them. Hence this appeal.
2. Pw. l is an independent witness, who was present at the time of purchase and sampling. pw. 2 is the peon of the Food Inspector and pw.3 is the Food Inspector himself. Exts. P1 to P20 are the documents proved by pw.3. His evidence is supported by the depositions of Pws. 1 and 2. On the question of purchase, sampling and observan
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.