LexBENNY THOMAS versus FOOD INSPECTOR, KOCHI AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 10 S.C.R. 71 BENNY THOMAS A V. FOOD INSPECTOR, KOCHI AND ANR. (Criminal Appeal No. 998 of 2008) JULY 7, 2008 B [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.] Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - s. 16 (1) (a) (i) r/w s. 7 (1) ands. 2 (ia)(m) I Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 - r. 5 rlw Appendix B, Item A. 07. 08 and r. 50, 17 c and 18 - Food sample - Collected by Food Inspector after effective purchase - On analysis sample found to be adulter- ated - Initiation of prosecution - Conviction by courts below - , On appeal, held: In the facts of the case, prosecution proved ..,......-- "' that the sample was adulterated - There was no violation of rr. D 17 and 18 - Public Health. and Safety Food Inspector (PW1) while inspecting shop of the appellant, purchased one of the four bottles of synthetic syrup kept in the shop and received voucher for payment (Exbt P-4). The analysis report of the sample of the syrup E showed that it did not conform to the standards pre- scribed under the rules and therefore was adulterated. Appellant-accused was prosecuted. He was found guilty u/s 16 (1) (a) (i) r/w s. 7 (1) and s. 2 (ia) (m) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and also u/r 5 r/w Appendix F B, Item A.07.08 and r. 50 of Prevention of Food Adultera- tion Rules, 1955. Appellate Court as well as revisional court confirmed the conviction. Hence the present appeal. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. The prosecution has been able to estab- G lish that the sarbath purchased from the accused by PW1 is adulterated. Admittedly, the sample was colleeted by the Food Inspector after effecting purchase and had given 71 I I ,.., Iā¢ 72 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 10 S.C.R. A the receipt. As rightly noted by the High Court the articles were intended for sale. When the accused was questioned under section 313 Cr.P.C., he conceded that he had sold sarbath to PW1. Further the sale of sarbath to PW1 is proved by Ex. P4 voucher issued by the accused towards B the purchase and acceptance of its cost from PW1. He had also given Ex. P3 Form VI notice to the accused, the rece'ipt of which has been acknowledged by him as per Ex. P3 (a) endorsement and signature. [Paras 7 and 8] [74-E,F,G,H; 75-A & F] C 2. From the evidence of PW-1 it is clear that at one point of time the sample was handed over to the public analyst the succeeding day of taking the sample from the shop of the accused. PW-1 also stated that other two parts of the sample alongwith Form No.VII Me.morandum and D the specimen impression of the seal used to seal the sample bottles were handed over to the Local Health Au- thority by PW-1 and copy of the information had been given to PW-2, the Local Health Authority. PW-2 stated in his evidence that he had received two parts of the sample E alongwith Form VII and the specimen impression of the seal used to seal the sample in separate sealed cover. Therefore, there was no violation of Rules 17 and 18 of the Rules. [Para 10] [76-G,H; 77-A & B] CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal F No. 998 of 2008 From the final Judgment and Order dated 25.5.2006 of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Criminal Rev. Pet. No. 1917of2004 G K. Rajeev for the Appellant. R. Sathish for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by H Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted. BENNY THOMAS v. FOOD INSPECTOR, KOCHI 73 & ANR. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J] 2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a A learned Single Judge of the Kera la High Court dismissing the Criminal Revision Petition which was filed questioning correct- ness of the conviction for offence punishable under Section 16(1 )(a)(i) read with Section 7(1) and Section 2(ia)(m) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (in short the 'Act') B and also under Rule 5 read with Appendix B, Item A.07.08 and Rule 50 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (in short the 'Rules'). The appellant was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/ - with default stipulation as recorded by learned Judicial Mag- c istrate, 1st Class, Kochi. The learned IV Addi. Sessions Judge, Ernakulam in appeal modified the sentence and reduced it to simple imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation. 3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: D On 22.5.2000 at about 4.00 p.m., th
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.