In Re: P. Jeyaveerapandian

Maheswaran, J.—Criminal Appeal No. 434 of 1977 it filed by Jeyaveerapandian accused I in C.C. No 329 of 1973 on the file of the Sub

Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Shencottab, against the Judgment of the learned Magistrate convicting him under S. 16(l)(a)(i) read with S. 14 of the

Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentencing him to imprisonment till the rising of the Court and to fine of Rs. 250/-. This appeal was originally filed before the Sessions Court, Tirunelveli, and numbered as Criminal Appeal No. 155 of 1974 in that Court, and later was transferred to this Court to be heard along with Criminal Appeal No. 888 of 1974, and has been now numbered as Crl. A. No. 434 of 1977.

Crl. A. No. 816 of 1978 has been fifed by accused. No. 3 in the abovesaid C.C.329/73 ON the file of the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate.

Shencottah, against the Judgment of the Magistrate convicting him of an offence punishable, under S. 16(1)(a)(i) read with S. 7(l) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment till the rising of the'' Court and to a fine of Rs. 200/-, The appeal was originally filed as Crl. A. No. 161/74 before the Sessions Court, Tirunelveli, and later transferred to this Court for being tried along with Crl. A. No. 888 of

1974 on the file of the Court, and has now been numbered as Crl. A. No. 816 of 1978 in this Court.

Crl. A. No. 888 of 1974 has been filed by the, State questioning the adequacy of the sentences imposed by the Magistrate on Accused 1 and

Accused 3 in C. C. No. 329 of 1973.

The facts:-The first accused (Appellant in C.A. No. 434/77) was the manufacturer of P.J.T. Pattani flour at Madurai. The license was in the

name of his minor son. Accused 1 applied for license for having a retail shop under the name and style of Sakthi Stores within Kalladaikuriehi

Panchayat. Accused-2 is the wife of Accused 3 (Appellant in C.A. 816 of 1978). The license for the shop at Kalladaikurichi stood in the name of

Accused 2. (Accused No. 2 was acquitted by the trial Court). Accused 3 is conducting that business.

On 27th September, 1973 at about 11 a.m. P.W.I, the Pood Inspector, Kalladaikurichi Town Panchayat, inspected Sakthi Stores at

Kalladaikurichi. He found a full bag and a half bag of flour exposed for sale with the marks "P.J.T,"" of the manufacturer.... He purchased 300

grams of floor for analysis from the full, bag exposed for sale. After observing all the formalities he sealed the sample so taken in three clean bottles and seat one of them to the Public Analyst. The report of the Analyst, Ex. P 16, showed that the sample consisted of a mixture- of 25 per cent of smooth pattani powder, -SO per cent of Bengal Gram Powder and 25 per cent of Keiari Dhall Flour. P.W.I laid the complaint against accused 1

to 3. The learned trial. Magistrate, on the evidence adducted found Accused 1 Appellant in C.A. 434/77) and Accused 3 (appellant is C.A.

816/78) guilty of the offence with which they were charged and convicted and auctioned them as mentioned above.

One of the contentions raised before me is that joint trial of accused 1 to 3 baa caused prejudice to Accused 1. This offence was committed

before the amendment of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. S. 20-A of the said Act empowered the Magistrate to implead the manufacturer also. Such an impleading would not vitiate the entire trial. Further, it may be noted that even from the inception the first accused has been impleaded along with Accused 3 who had actually sold the flour. Such impleading enables the trial of the really guilty parties. Ex.P 20 has shows that the manufacturer should also be impleaded in the prosecution. The above contention is therefore, without any substance.

The evidence adduced in this case very clearly shows that the sample is adulterated and it contains a mixture of 25 per cent, of pea powder, 50

percent of Bengal Gram Powder and 25 percent of Kesari Dhall Powder. The evidence also shows that the first Accused is the manufacturer of

the "Pattaoi powder". The vendor, Accused 3 has stored the goods purchased from Accused 1 and has sold the sane to P.W.I in the same

condition as it was received by him. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the adulteration might have been made by Accused 3 after he purchased from Accused l''s shop;

The other contention is that the Food Inspector has not prepared any observation mahazar for the seizure of the "Pattaai flour". But, it should be

noted that P.W.I, the Food Inspector purchased this pea powder for analysis and was issued the receipt, Ex.P 9 and the notice in Form VI at the time of taking the sample was served on Accused 3, under Ex.P 11. Therefore, there is no need for preparing a mahazar.

I may point out that Accused 3 is available for conviction. The reasons mentioned by the Magistrate are as follow :

To attract the S. 19(2) of the Food Adulteration Act its not sufficient for A 3 to keep the article purchased from A''l in the same condition and he should have also obtained a written warranty in the prescribed Form from A 1, Without written warranty in the prescribed Form obtained from A-

l, A-3 cannot seek shelter under S. 19(2) of the Food Adulteration Act, Therefore. A-3 is liable for the charge framed against him.

These observations are not attacked and in my view, they are not wrong.

For the above reasons, I hold that the conviction and sentence passed against Accused 1 and 3 by the Magistrate are correct and are

therefore, confirmed and Crl. Appeals Nos. 434/77 and 816/78 are dismissed.

Coming to Crl. A. No. 888/74 it is pointed out by Mr. Sam V. Chelliah, learned counsel for the accused, that the occurrence was in the year

1973 and that it would cause great hardship to the accused if they are sent to jail after the lapse of a period of six years. Having regard to this

circumstance, I feel that the enhancement of the sentence of imprisonment is not called for in this case. Hence, this appeal preferred by the State is

dismissed.