Kerala High Court
Mathew Varghese vs Food Inspector on 20 December, 2012
Author: N.K. Balakrishnan
Bench: N.K.Balakrishnan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN
THURSDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2012/29TH AGRAHAYANA 1934
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 526 of 2002 ( )
-------------------------------
CRA.126/1997 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT,KOTTAYAM
CC.503/1993 of J.M.F.C.,VAIKOM
REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
----------------------------------------
MATHEW VARGHESE,PALAMATTOM HOUSE,
PERUVA P.O.
BY ADV. SRI.JAMES ABRAHAM (VILAYAKATTU)
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE:
-----------------------------------
1. FOOD INSPECTOR, ETTUMANNOOR CIRCLE.
2. STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.JASMINE V.H.
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
20-12-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
JJJ
N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, J.
------------------------------------------
Crl. R.P. No: 526 of 2002
------------------------------------------
Dated this the 20th day of December, 2012
O R D E R
The petitioner is the accused who was concurrently found guilty and convicted for the offence punishable under sections 16(1)(a)(c) and (d) of P.F.A. Act, 1954. He was sentenced by the learned Magistrate to simple imprisonment for eight months and to pay Rs.1,000/- as fine. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, after re-appraisal of the evidence, concurred with the conviction and sentence and the appeal was dismissed.
2. PW1 - the Food Inspector, Ettumanoor Circle, went to the shop of the petitioner situated in building no. IV/367 of Mulakkulam Panchayat on 12.08.1993 at about 11 a.m. PW1 visited the shop along with other witnesses. Petitioner's father was in the shop. PW1 introduced herself Crl.R.P. No: 526/2002 -2- as the Food Inspector. When she started inspection the accused entered the shop and told PW1 that he was the owner of the shop and questioned the act of PW1 entering that shop. When PW1 told him that she was the Food Inspector, Ettumanoor Circle and that she entered the shop for taking sample for the purpose of analysis, the accused abused her and obstructed her from discharging her duties as the Food Inspector. It was stated by PW1 that when Form VI Notice was given by her demanding 750 gms of green gram as sample, the accused refused to receive and acknowledge the Form VI Notice. Ext. P1 is the notification appointing PW1 as the Food Inspector of Ettumanoor Circle. Ext.P2 is the copy of Form VI notice which was attempted to be given by PW1 to the accused. Since the accused prevented PW1 from taking sample and discharging her official duties and also because the accused refused to receive and acknowledge the Form VI notice, a mahazar - Crl.R.P. No: 526/2002 -3- Ext.P3 was prepared by PW1 in the presence of PW2, who also signed Ext.P3. Though PW2 did not support the prosecution, PW3 - the Peon who had accompanied PW1 supported the evidence given by PW1. The accused contended that he did not prevent PW1 from taking the sample or from discharging her duties. In Ext.P3, PW1 has narrated the entire incident that took place at the relevant time, from inside the shop.
3. The learned Magistrate analysed the evidence given by PWs 1 and 3 and found that PW1 was prevented by the accused from taking sample and from discharging her duties as the Food Inspector of Ettumanoor Circle. The fact that the shop inspected by PW1 belonged to the accused was not in dispute. Exts. D1 and D2 are the receipts for payment of P.F.A. license fee. Ext.D3 is the letter stated to have been sent by the Secretary Mulakkulam Grama Crl.R.P. No: 526/2002 -4- Panchayath. The contention raised by the accused that he did not prevent PW1 from taking sample or from discharging the duties of PW1 as Food Inspector, was turned down by the court below. The contention that since PW2 did not support the prosecution, the courts below should not have acted upon the evidence given by PWs 1 and 3 was also rightly rejected by the courts below. Since PW1 had gone to that shop for taking sample for analysis, the question whether the accused had obtained P.F.A. license for the relevant period is not of much consequence.
4. The specific case of PW1 is that when she went to that shop for taking sample the accused used abusive words and threatened her and he (the accused) prevented PW1 from discharging her official duties. There is also evidence to show that PW1 attempted to serve Ext.P2 -Form VI notice to the accused. It was refused by the accused. Therefore, Crl.R.P. No: 526/2002 -5- that also would clearly prove that the accused prevented PW1 from exercising the power conferred on her by or under the P.F.A. Act. Regarding the offending act of the accused, the learned appellate Judge has stated:
"On 12-8-93 at 11 a.m., she inspected the provision shop bearing No.IV/367 owned by the accused in Mulakkulam Panchayat along with PW3 the Peon of the Food Inspector. She disclosed her identity and purpose of the visit to V.M. Varkey, the father of the accused, who was present in the shop at that time.
While so accused rushed into the shop and questioned her under what authority she dared to enter the shop for inspection. He prevented her from taking sample of any items exhibited for sale in the shop and showered obscene and abusive words on her. She once again cautioned him about her official duties and requested to sell 750 grams of green gram kept for sale in a gunny Crl.R.P. No: 526/2002 -6- bag. She served form VI notice on him. But he did not sign on it nor allowed PW1 to inspect the sample. The stock contained insect infested green gram and while she proceeded to take a hand full for perusal she was bodily prevented by the accused. He immediately called his coolie worker and sent out the stock of green gram bundled up."
The act of preventing PW1 from taking sample as authorised by the P.F.A. Act and the act of refusing to acknowledge Form VI notice are so integral and so it can be held that the accused prevented PW1 from discharging her duty as a Food Inspector and prevented her from exercising her power as per the P.F.A. Act and Rules. Above all there is also the evidence that the accused abused and used threatening words against PW1 with intent to prevent PW1 from discharging her duty as Food Inspector. These aspects Crl.R.P. No: 526/2002 -7- were highlighted by the courts below to find the petitioner guilty.
5. It is vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that such a case was foisted against him out of animosity. That plea was rightly rejected by the courts below. The prosecution contends that the petitioner wanted to exhibit his power and wanted to see that the Food Inspector does not inspect and take sample of food articles from the shop and for that purpose he wanted to get the support from the Secretary of Vyapari Vyavasayi Ekopana Samithi. It is argued by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that a complaint was given by the accused stating that the complainant had demanded illegal gratification and for that purpose she had asked the accused to meet her in her office. The further contention is that the accused had therefore, complained to DW1 the office bearer of the Merchant's Association.
Crl.R.P. No: 526/2002 -8-
6. The evidence would show that the accused thereafter met the District Food Inspector and made some allegation against PW1, but the District Food Inspector was stated to have told the accused to meet the Food Inspector (PW1) evidently to tender apology. But the accused did not meet her. The contention that PW1 wanted the accused to meet her in her office for something else is only a story trotted out by the accused. It seems PW1 also did not, at first, wanted to lodge the complaint, but she chose to file the complaint because of the impudent act of the accused/revision petitioner. Therefore, slight delay, if any, in the filing of the complaint is not fatal to the prosecution.
7. The learned Public Prosecutor has rightly pointed out that since the accused is a member of the Merchant's Association and since the members of that Association are hand in gloves with each other, the evidence given by DW1 Crl.R.P. No: 526/2002 -9- was rightly rejected by the courts below. I find no reason to differ from the view taken by the courts below.
8. On going through the judgments of the courts below, I find that cogent, convincing and reliable evidence was given by PW1 that when she went to the shop to exercise the power conferred under the P.F.A. Act, she was prevented from discharging her duties. The accused used abusive and threatening words against PW1. The evidence that when she attempted to serve Form VI notice it was refused to be accepted by the accused, was also rightly accepted by the courts below.
9. In view of what has been stated above, I find no reason to upset the concurrent verdict of conviction entered by the courts below. The petitioner was sentenced to simple imprisonment for eight months and to pay Rs.1,000/- as fine. In find that the substantive sentence can be reduced to simple imprisonment for six months. Crl.R.P. No: 526/2002 -10-
10. In the result this Criminal Revision Petition is disposed of as stated below:
The conviction is confirmed. While maintaining the sentence of fine and the default sentence awarded by the courts below, the substantive sentence is reduced to simple imprisonment for six months. The petitioner shall surrender before the learned Magistrate on or before 31.01.2013 to serve out the sentence.
Sd/-
N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE //True Copy// P.A. to Judge jjj