Research › Browse › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

1986 DIGILAW 240 (MAD)

Food Inspector v. Abbas

1986-06-23

SREEDHARAN

body1986
Judgment: 1. Food Inspector, Shornur Municipality is the appellant. He visited Regal Bakery, Shornur on 21-12-1979 and demanded milk cream after disclosing his identity. A Form VI notice was given to the first accused, who was in charge of the bakery. The first accused sold 900 grams of milk cream for a value of Rs.9. Cash bill given by the first accused is Ext. P3. The said quantity of milk cream was duly sampled. Divided i into three parts and poured it into three clean, dry bottles. Those three bottles were sealed and paper tags were affixed. One sample was sent to the Public Analyst along with Form VII memorandum and specimen impression of the seal used for sealing the samples. Another Form VII memorandum and specimen impression of the seal were sent to the Public Analyst separately by regd. Post. The remaining two bottles of sample and the Form VIII memoranda were sent to the Local (Health) Authority. The Chemical Examiner after analysis found the sample to be adulterated. On getting the report of the Analyst through the Local Health Authority, the Food Inspector filed the complaint before Court. He then informed the Local (Health) Authority of the prosecution proceedings, Immediately the Local (Health) Authority forwarded the notice contemplated byS.13(2) and Rule 9A to the first accused On getting that notice, the first accused applied to the court to have one sample analysed by the Director of Central Director of Central Food Laboratory. The Court sent one of the samples obtained from the Local (Health) Authority to the Director of Central Food Laboratory. The Director, as per Ext-CI report, found the article of food to be adulterated. 2. To bring home the guilt of the accused, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined, Exts. P.1 toP.14 were marked and the report of the Director of Central Food Laboratory was marked as Ext. CI. After considering this evidence, the learned magistrate acquitted the accused on the ground that no standard has been prescribed in the Act or the Rules for milk cream and that the Food Inspector has not complied with Rules 16 to 18 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. Hence the appeal. 3. The article of food asked for by the Food Inspector was milk cream. A copy of the Form VI notice issued by the Food Inspector is marked as Ext. P.2. Hence the appeal. 3. The article of food asked for by the Food Inspector was milk cream. A copy of the Form VI notice issued by the Food Inspector is marked as Ext. P.2. Receipt of this notice is admitted by the first accused. The first accused sold 900 gms. of milk cream as is evidenced by Ext.P3 cash bill. The milk cream was analysed by the Director of Central Food Laboratory and the same was found to be adulterated. His report, Ext. CI reads as follows: “The sample does not conform to the standard laid down for Cream under the provisions of P.F.A. Act, 1954 and Rules thereof in that: (a) Milk fat content falls below the minimum specified limit of 25.0 per cent. (b) It contains added starch, cane sugar and colouring matter not found in milk”. A.11.02.02 of Appendix B to the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules prescribes the standard for cream. It reads: “Cream excluding sterilised cream means the product of cow or buffalo milk or of a combination thereof which contains not less than 25.0 per cent milk fat” As per this fixation, cream can only be a product of milk and it must contain 25.0 per cent milk fat. In other words, cream cannot be prepared from any sources other than milk. This is made more clear by Rule 44 of the Rules. It states that: “Notwithstanding the provisions of Rule 43 no person shall either by himself or by any servant or agent sell- (a) Cream which has not been prepared exclusively from milk or which contains less than 25 per cent of milk fat……………”. The above provisions prove beyond any doubt that cream can only be prepared from milk and that the same should contain not less than 25 percent of milk fat. Thus the milk cream that has been sold by the first accused can only be the cream as specified in Rule 44 for which standard is prescribed in A.11.02.02 of Appendix B. 4. A. 11.02 of Appendix B mentions the various milk products. The first item of milk product mentioned therein is cream. Thus the milk cream that has been sold by the first accused can only be the cream as specified in Rule 44 for which standard is prescribed in A.11.02.02 of Appendix B. 4. A. 11.02 of Appendix B mentions the various milk products. The first item of milk product mentioned therein is cream. Thus cram, an article of food, can only be a milk product and it must conform to the standard prescribed in A.11.02.02 of Appendix B. In this view, the argument advanced by counsel for the respondent that the Food Inspector demanded milk cream, that the first accused sold milk cream, that no standard is prescribed for milk cream and hence the accused did not commit any offence under the Act is only to be stated to be rejected. 5. Rules 16 to 18 deal with the manner of packing and sealing the samples, the manner of despatching the containers of samples and the memorandum and impression of seal to be sent separately. According to learned Magistrate, the Food Inspector has violated these provisions in the sense that he had not stated the same in the mahazar prepared by him. I do not find any merit in this statement. In Ext. P4 mahazar, the Food inspector has given the vivid details of the various steps taken by him in sampling the 900 grams of milk cream purchased. As P.W.1, he had spoken to all the minute details. Even otherwise, all the actions done by the Food inspector were done in the discharge of his official duties. Those actions are to be presumed to be done properly. So, in the instant case.P.W.1. has not only sworn to all the minute details, but also is entitled to the protection of the presumption underS.114 of the Evidence Act. No question has been put to the Food Inspector challenging any of the actions carried out by him in sampling the quantity of milk cream purchased and in sending the same to the Public Analyst and to the Local (Health) Authority. Therefore, I hold that the Food Inspector has strictly complied with the provisions of the Act and the Rules in regard to the purchase, sampling and despatch of the same to the Local (Health) Authority and to the Public Analyst. The contrary view taken by the learned Magistrate is against the evidence and I overrule the same. 6. Therefore, I hold that the Food Inspector has strictly complied with the provisions of the Act and the Rules in regard to the purchase, sampling and despatch of the same to the Local (Health) Authority and to the Public Analyst. The contrary view taken by the learned Magistrate is against the evidence and I overrule the same. 6. The second accrsed has been impleaded in these proceedings as the owner of the Regal Bakery. In order to prove the ownership, the Food Inspector relies on Exts.P11 and P14, two applications stated to have been filed by the second accused for licence before the Shornur Municipality. There are over writings regarding the number of the building. Apart from producing those applications in court, no intimation was ever seen to have been sent by the Food Inspector to the second accused. In such a situation, I do not consider it safe to punish the second accused as the owner of the Regal Bakery. His acquittal is perfecdy legal and it is sustained. 7. The evidence discussed above clearly goes to establish the guilt of the first accused for the offence under sections 2(ia) and 7(1) read with section 16(1)(a)(i) and (ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and Rule 44 (a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. He is convicted for the same. He is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000. In default of payment of fine, he will undergo simple imprisonment for another one month. 8. The Criminal Appeal is allowed in the above terms. Appeal allowed.