In Re: Abdul Khader

Maheswaran, J.—This revision is directed against the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Coimbatore West division, confirming

the conviction of the revision petitioner under S. 7(i) read with S. 2(1)(a)(i) and 16(1)(a)(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the

sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three months and also a fine of Rs. 500/- imposed on him by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate,

Pollachi.

On 3rd May, 1977 at about 11.30 A.M., P.W. 1, the Food Inspector of Valparat Township Committee, purchased 600 grams of cumin seeds

for Rs. 10.80/- from the revision petitioner for analysis. After observing all the formalities, he divided them Into three equal parts and sealed them

in accordance with the rules in three clean envelopes and sent one of such packets to the analyst who sent a report. Ex. P 4, which showed that the

sample contains extraneous matter in excess, to the extent of 142 per cent. Later, the Food Inspector filed a complaint.

The only contention taken before me by the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner is that R.18 of the Prevention of Food

Adulteration Rules has not been observed, that the said Rule is mandatory and non-compliance of that Rule may vitiate the entire proceedings. In

support, he invited my attention to Ramalingam v. Food Inspector, Nagapattinam Municipality 1979 L.W Crl. 103 where Suryamurthy, J., has

taken the view that the Rule is mandatory and failure to observe that Rule vitiates the entire trial. The learned Judge relied on a decision of a Bench

of the Mysore High Court in Belgaum Borough Municipality v. S. Shanker AIR 1968. Mys. 196. where the learned Judges of the Mysore High

Court

have no hesitation in holding that Rr. 7 and 18 of the Rules framed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act are mandatory and the non-

compliance of those Rules affects the evidentiary value of the certificate and in the absence of the extraneous evidence of the conviction is sure to

be vitiated.

What the learned Judges have observed is that the non-compliance would only affect the evidentiary value of the certificate and in the absence of

evidence aliened the conviction may be vitiated. Here, though generally P.W. 1 has stated that he has packed and sealed and sent the packet in

accordance with the Rules he has not adverted to the question whether he sent a copy of the memorandum and a specimen of the impression of the

seal used by him separately either by registered post or by personal delivery to the Public Analyst and contemplated under R. 18 of the Prevention

of Food Adulteration Rules. Though this point was expressly raised before the Appellate Court, it is unfortunate that the learned Additional

Sessions Judge has not cared to deal with this point. It is no doubt true, as pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor, that this point was not

raised before the trial Court. Under those circumstances, it appears to me that the best course to be adopted is to set aside the conviction and

sentence and to remit the matter to the trial Court for fresh disposal. The revision is accordingly allowed, the conviction and sentence are set aside

and the matter is remitted to the trial Magistrate for finding out whether P. W. 1, the Food Inspector, has complied with provisions of R.18 of the

Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules and for disposal afresh.