IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER THURSDAY, THE 11TH DECEMBER 2008 / 20TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 979 of 2001() ----------------------------- CRA.13/1996 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, KOTTAYAM CC.124/1990 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, KOTTAYAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: --------------------- P.G. RAVI, PUTHUPPARAMBIL, NATTASSERY, VADAVATHOOR, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP SRI.V.K.SUNIL RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT --------------- 1. KERALA STATE REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. FOOD INSPECTOR, VIJAYAPURAM PANCHAYATH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. MUHAMMED PUZHAKKARA THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K. Basheer, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P.No. 979 of 2001 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 11th day of December, 2008 ORDER Petitioner was prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 7 (1) read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954 on the charge that the sample of vinegar purchased from him by the Food Inspector was found to be adulterated, in as much as it did not conform to the standard prescribed under the Act and the Rules. The trial court found the petitioner guilty of the offences alleged against him and he was accordingly convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default to undergo a further period of simple imprisonment for one month. The above order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court was confirmed in appeal by the Sessions Court. 2. The prosecution case in brief was that Pw.1, the Food Inspector, Changanassery Circle had inspected the provision store run by the appellant/accused situated within the limits of Vijayapuram Panchayat at about 11.30 a.m. on March 16, 1990. After disclosing his identity, the Food Inspector purchased 900 ml. of vinegar from the bottles of vinegar kept for sale in the store. The Food Inspector purchased the said article after complying with all the statutory formalities. Sampling was also done as provided under the Act and the Rules. The report of the Public Analyst revealed that the sample did not conform to the standard prescribed under the Act and the Rules. 2 3. The prosecution examined Pws.1 to 5 and marked Exts.P1 to P18 on its side. One witness was examined on the side of the defence as Dw.1. The learned Magistrate, after a careful evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the prosecution had succeeded in proving the charge against the petitioner. The learned Sessions Judge, after a careful re-evaluation, concurred with the finding entered by the learned Magistrate. 4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order of conviction and sentence is liable to be set aside, since Rule 14 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules had been violated by the Food Inspector while taking sample. The contention of the petitioner is that the prosecution had totally failed in adducing any evidence to show that the measuring jar which was used by the Food Inspector was clean and dry and that it was not in any way unclean or contaminated. Learned counsel relies on the evidence of Pw.4 who accompanied the Food Inspector during the inspection of the store and taking of sample. 5. It is pertinent to note that no question was put to Pw.1 with regard to the cleanliness of the measuring jar. In fact Pw.1 in his chief examination had categorically stated that it was in fact the petitioner who had measured and poured the vinegar into the sampling bottles carried by him. The Food Inspector had spoken about the condition of the sample bottles as well. It is true that he did not refer to the measuring jar, obviously for the reason that the petitioner himself had used the measuring jar which was probably available in his shop. In this context it may also be noticed that the petitioner did not have a case that he did not have a measuring jar or that the measuring jar was brought by Pw.1. It is true that Pw.4, the Peon who accompanied the Food Inspector had stated that the measuring jar was taken by the Food Inspector along with him. But to a 3 specific query whether he knew the condition of the measuring jar, the answer given by the Peon was that he had not inspected the same. It is basing on the evidence of Pw.4, the Peon, that the petitioner has now taken up the plea that there was no satisfactory evidence on the side of the prosecution to show that the measuring jar was clean and dry and that therefore the possibility of contamination of the sample cannot be ruled out. I am unable to accept the above contention raised by the petitioner. As mentioned earlier, no question was put to Pw.1 with regard to the cleanliness of the measuring jar. In fact the evidence of Pw.1 will show that the petitioner had used the measuring jar available with him for the purpose of taking the sample. In that view of the matter I am not persuaded to accept the plea now raised by the petitioner that Rule 14 had been violated. Though petitioner has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Koyakutty v. Food Inspector (2000 (3) KLT 693), I am of the view that in the facts and circumstances available in the case on hand, the petitioner cannot get any aid or assistance from the said decision. 6. Having regard to the entire facts and circumstances and having perused the materials available on record, I do not find any reason to interfere with the concurrent order of conviction and sentence passed by the courts below. The Crl.R.P fails. It is accordingly dismissed. A.K. Basheer Judge. an. A.K. Basheer, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P.No. 979 of 2001 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ORDER 11th December, 2008