Peer Gb.Nabi vs Health Officer

Mr. M.N. Kharduri.

The petitioner was convicted for offences under section 7/16 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act on the basis of the evidence in the result of

the Public Analyst which disclosed deficiency in solid not fat. According to the Public Analyst solid not fat which were found were 7,2% as against

8.5% as prescribed. The learned Municipal Magistrate, Srinagar after recording the conviction of the petitioner sentenced him to under go rigorous

imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 1,000/ and in default further imprisonment for three months. In appeal against the conviction and

sentence was heard by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge Srinagar. The learned 1st. Additional Sessions Judge found that the conviction of

the petitioner under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act had been rightly recorded. He, however, reduced the sentence of

imprisonment from six months to three months and the sentence of fine from Rs .1000/ to Rs 500/ Except for the modification in the sentence the

appeal was dismissed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner while questioning the conviction and sentence recorded by the courts below has submitted that the milk had

not been stored in dry clean bottles and that the formalin added so as to preserve it was insufficient. In fact these arguments have been raised with

a view to attract an earlier judgment of this court wherein it was held that the violation by the Food Inspector to put the milk in dry any clean

bottles and insufficient addition of Formalin was fatal to the case. In this case, however, the Food Inspector categorically asserted that after the

sample of milk was purchased, it was divided in three parts and filled in clean bottles to which 18 drops formalin each were added. The bottles

ware thereafter sealed and stoppered properly. Not a single question was asked in the crossexamination to question this assertion of the Food

Inspector and it is now futile to contend that the milk was not sealed as prescribed by the rules or that the preservative added was deficient.

Learned counsel then argued that the Food inspector who had instituted the complaint had no authority to file the complaint. This argument

ignores the authority given to the Health officer by virtue of SRO 709 dated 21.10.1975 whereby the (State Govt. has empowered the Health

officer to exercise powers section 20 of the Act within the local areas of the Srinagar Municipality. The Health officer had properly authorised the

Food Inspector to file the complaint and therefore no fault can be found on that score. Similar argument was raised before the learned 1st

Additional Sessions Judge who on the basis of the authority 1978 (ii) FAC: 136 repelled the argument and in my opinion rightly.

After considering the case in its different aspects. I find no reason to admit this revision petition and dismiss the same in limine.