Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. The complainant-Food Inspector has preferred this appeal challenging the judgment of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thodupuzha dated 28-2-1994 in C.C. No. 57/ 1989 acquitting the accused.

2. Two accused persons, father and son were prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 2 (ia) (a), (f), (m) and 7 (i) read with Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and Rule 5 appendix B, A. 18.06 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules alleging that at 10.40 a.m. on 13-2-1987 they being the licensee and salesman of the shop conducted in door No. 17/3 of Kumaramangalam Panchayath exhibited for sale insect infested peas dhal unfit for human consumption and as such they committed the offences alleged against them.

5. The case of the prosecution is that on 13-2-1987 at about 10.40 a.m. PW1 along with PW2. the Peon in his office after informing his identity purchased 750 gms. of peas dhal exhibited for sale from the shop of the respondents for the purpose of analysis by paying the price and sampled the same in accordance with law and sent for chemical analysis and after analysis PW5 the Public Analyst sent his report Ext. P9 to the effect that the sample did not conform to the standard prescribed for peas dhal under the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and it was insect infested and unfit for human consumption.

15. In point No. 1 the lower Court has held that PW1 has purchased 750 gms. of peas dhal from the respondents for chemical examination on 13-2-1987 at 10.40 a.m. In point No. 2 the lower Court has held that on the basis of the evidence of PW5, the Public Analyst and his analysis report Ext.P9 that the peas dhal exhibited for sale in the shop of the respondents was unfit for human consumption due to insect infection. I find those findings arrived at by the lower Court are on proper appreciation of the evidence on record and the challenge against those findings made by the respondents are not at all sustainable.

25. As it is found by the lower Court itself that PW. 1, the Food Inspector has purchased peas dhal exhibited for sale in the shop of the respondents for the purpose of analysis and on analysis it was found that the peas dhal did not conform to the standard prescribed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and is unfit for human consumption as insect infested and this Court has found that the rejection of the evidence of PW 1 by the lower Court as well as the finding of the lower Court that there is violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 13(2) of the Act due to non-service of the notices with copy of the analysis report on the respondents, are not sustainable and the evidence of PW 1 is admissible in evidence and there is proper service of notice under Section 13(2) of the Act, the finding of the lower Court that the respondents are not guilty of the offences alleged against them and the order of acquittal are not sustainable. It is clear from the evidence on record that the prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt that the respondents have committed the offences punishable under Sections 2(ia)(a)(f), (m) and 7(i) read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and Rule 5 Appendix B, A. 18.06 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules.