Conviction upheld for selling adulterated food, emphasizing mandatory health standards and procedural compliance in food safety regulations.

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 observance of the formalities according to the Act and Rules, pw.3 has given evidence only in general without going into the minute details of the observance of each and every formality. But he proved all the documents evidencing observance of the formalities enjoined by the Act and the Rules.

3. In this appeal we are mainly concerned only with the accusations against the first accused because acquittal of the 2nd accused has only to stand. The contention of the 1st accused was that pan supari exposed by him for sale was purchased from the 2nd accused. But the 1st accused himself admitted that there was no warranty. Ext. D1 is the bill produced by the 1st accused during trial as if it was given by the 2nd accused. pw.3 said that no such bill was shown to him at the time of purchase and sampling and what the 1st accused told him was that there was no bill or warranty. In the absence of proof on the part of the 1st accused, that he made the purchase with a written warranty from any manufacturer, distributor or dealer, much less the 2nd accused, there is no question of the 2nd accused being held liable or the first accused being exonerated under S.19(2). Therefore the acquittal of the 2nd accused has only to be confirmed.

4. The first accused challenged the evidence of pw.3, Food Inspector in his cross examination only on the following aspects. He was first asked about Ext. D1 bill and he said that there was no such bill shown to him. Then he was asked whether saccharine is a permitted artificial sweetener. pw.3 denied that suggestion also, Then he was asked whether Form III was sent as seen from Ext. P18 acknowledgement. The answer was that the suggestion is not correct and Form III was sent to the 1st accused. The only other question asked by the first accused in cross examination of pw.3 was whether R.3 was not complied with. That suggestion was also denied. I have adverted to these facts only because at the time of arguments before me non compliance of various provisions of the Act and Rules was attempted to be canvassed. It has been held by this Court in various decisions that even though it may be advisable for the Food Inspector to give detailed evidence in the box regarding the observance of all the formalities, absence of such evidence and evidence given by the Food Inspector in a general way need not straight away lead to the acquittal of the accused. So also it has been repeatedly held that an accused who fails to challenge the general evidence of the Food Inspector supported by documents on the observance of any particular formality does so at his risk and thereafter he cannot be heard to say that such formality was not complied with unless the evidence supports his contention. The evidence will have to be appreciated in this background.

5. The sample