Sankaran vs The Food Inspector-X Division, Tiruchirapalli Municipality, Tiruchirapalli

Singaravelu, J.—This is a petition u/s 482 of Crl.P.C., by the accused in C.C. No. 192 of 1982, on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate No. 1, Tiruchirappalli, to quash the proceedings against the accused. The Respondent, namely, the Food Inspector, Thiruchirappalli launched the prosecution against the Petitioner herein for an offence under Ss.2 (e), 7 (iii) and (i) and 16 (1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and Rr.49(3) and 50 (i)(h)(7)(9) and (11) of the Rules framed thereunder.

The accused is running a coffee hotel in one of the main roads of Tiruchirappalli Town within the Municipality. The allegation against him is that the prepared foodstuffs stored in the counter for sale were not covered and they were exposed to dirt, flies and insects. It is further alleged that the drinking water was not properly covered. The Food Inspector inspected the premises on 29th May, 1982 at 9. 00 A.M., and in the presence of the Health Officer a notice was issued to the accused but, he did not even wait for the reply and, therefore, the Petitioner/accused contends that the prosecution is malicious. The further contention of the Petitioner/accused is that the Food Inspector had no territorial jurisdiction in respect of the area in which the restaurant is situated. On these grounds, the Petitioner seeks quashing of the proceedings.

Learned Counsel for the accused argued that the Food Inspector had no jurisdiction over that particular area and, therefore, the complaint must fail. For this proposition, reliance was placed on an order in Crl.M.P. No. 7875 of 1983 under which Kader, J. has held that the power of the Food Inspector to act is restricted to a particular area and that the Sanitary Inspector of one Ward has no right to take sample in a hotel in another Ward .I am unable to agree with this view expressed in Crl.M.P. No. 7875 of 1983 (unreported), because all the Sanitary Inspectors within the Municipality are conferred with the powers of Food Inspectors and appointed as such. In other words, all Sanitary Inspectors by virtue of their office are Food Inspectors. The Sanitary Inspectors are, of course, appointed for specified areas, but it does not automatically mean that he should confine himself as Food Inspector only in that area, since there is no want of inherent jurisdiction to him. This allocation of areas is only for administrative convenience and it does not take away the powers of a Sanitary Inspector to inspect any premises and take samples. Jurisdiction is carved out only for effective performance of duties, and in the case before use the Food Inspector took out samples in the immediate presence of his superior, namely Senior Inspector who was present at the time and place of occurrence. In this connection, the scheme of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act must also be noted and S. 12 of the said Act empowers even a private person to take sample and send it to the analyst. Therefore, a Food Inspector who is also a Sanitary Inspector of the Municipality cannot be said to have acted without jurisdiction while taking the sample, especially when the Senior Inspector was there guiding the inspection. Therefore, the argument that the Food Inspector has no territorial jurisdiction over the Ward has no merit and the Food Inspector, by virtue of his office as Sanitary Inspector, is empowered to take samples in any of the areas within the Municipality in which he is working. The result, is, the plea of want of jurisdiction is negatived.

It was next contended on behalf of the Petitioner that even on the date of the inspection, the Food Inspector gave a notice listing out the omissions and commissions in the premises. A copy of the notice is on the file of this case and the Health Officer, Tiruchirapalli Municipality is purported to have issued the notice stating that certain deficiencies were found in the running of the restaurant and that they should be rectified within seven days. The main defects are that the water drum was not found closed, that the smoke of the kitchen was not properly evacuated through chimneys and that the cups and saucers were not washed in sterilizer set. Having given the notice, the Food Inspector should have normally waited for a reply or given him time to comply with the directions. Even in the notice, seven days time was given to the accused, but, after issuing the notice to rectify the defects, the Food Inspector has rushed to the court and laid the complaint on the very same day of check, namely 29th May, 1982. The Judicial First Class Magistrate has received the complaint on 29th May, 1982 and returned it for compliance of certain particulars.

It is strenuously contended on behalf of the Petitioner that the lodging of the complaint on the same day after having issued the notice to rectify the defects is mala fide and that, in any event, it is vindictive. There is force in the argument, since, having issued a notice, the Food Inspector should have waited till the expiry of the seven days time mentioned in the notice and then launched the prosecution. This is a serious infirmity which has caused prejudice to the accused. I have also taken into consideration the further fact that the alleged violations are only minor and it is not the case of the prosecution that any of the food articles was found to be adulterated. In other words, the Petitioner is alleged to be guilty of keeping the water drum open and for (sic) not displaying the articles of edibles in the notice board. It is only a technical offence which the Petitioner is said to have committed if at all it is proved. It is submitted on behalf of the Petitioner that the Petitioner''s hotel is one. of the leading restaurants in Trichy Town very near the colleges and commercial centres in the busiest part of the city, It is stated that the sales and turnover of the restaurant are very large and that it is always crowded, and in these circumstances, the keeping open of the drum is said to be inevitable, since there would be no time at all ever to close the water drum. For all these reasons, I am of opinion that the offence is trivial and it is only a technical violation of the sanitary rules. The result is, in view of the notice given by the Food Inspector granting seven days time, this simultaneous prosecution without waiting for the reply or rectification cannot be maintained.

In the result, the prosecution is quashed on the second ground alone. The petition is allowed, accordingly.