Revision petitioner is the first accused in S.T No.3120/1998 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Vadakara, who was convicted by the trial court for offences punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(i) r/w Section 7(1) (2)(1a)(m) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 ( in short 'the P.F.A Act') and Rule 5 appended B-A-05-09 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 ( in short 'the P.F.A Rules'). Second accused in the above case was acquitted. The first accused preferred an appeal before the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vadakara in Crl.Appeal No.215/2000. The learned Additional Sessions Judge after considering the entire evidence found that the appeal was without any merit and dismissed it confirming the conviction. Aggrieved by that judgment of the lower appellate court, the revision petitioner has approached this Court. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the revision petitioner expired on 7th July, 2004.
2. Since fine is also imposed on the deceased petitioner in addition to imprisonment, I am of the view that the merit of the matter is to be examined. So, I have carefully perused the records.
3. Prosecution case, in short, is that on 04-08-1998 at about 1.40 p.m., PW3, the Food Inspector, Vadakara Circle inspected the grocery shop of the deceased revision petitioner situated in a building in Villiappally Grama Panchayat. The Food Inspector after disclosing his identity, served Ext.P8 Form VI notice on the revision petitioner and asked him to supply six packets of cumin seeds, each containing 50 grams exhibited there for sale. After paying the price, PW3 purchased the articles and Ext.P8 notice was acknowledged by the deceased revision petitioner. Thereafter, PW3 divided the cumin seeds into three equal parts and packed, sealed and labelled the samples in compliance with the procedure laid down in the P.F.A Act and Rules. Ext.P10 mahazar was prepared from the spot showing the entire proceedings. Thereafter, one sample was sent to the Public Analyst on 05-08-1998 along with a copy of Form VI memorandum and other two sealed packets were handed over to the Local (Health) Authority. The Public Analyst found that the sample did not conform to the standards prescribed for cumin seeds under the P.F.A Acts and Rules. Therefore, it was found to be adulterated. Hence, the prosecution was launched.
4. During the course of trial, six witnesses were examined and thirty one documents were marked on the side of the prosecution. There was no defence evidence. MO1 is the material object.
5. Courts below analyzed the prosecution evidencing threadbare in their judgments. PW1 was a clerk in the Villiappally Grama Panchayat. He was examined to prove Ext.P1, the application filed by the deceased revision petitioner for P.F.A licence. Ext.P2 is the P.F.A Register. Ext.P2(a) is the relevant entry in Ext.P2 relating to the revision petitioner. PW2 was the Health Inspector, attached to Kozhikode Corporation. He proved Ext.P3, the letter sent to him by the Food Inspector, Vadakara. PW3, the Food Inspector of Vadakara Circle took sample of cumin seed from the deceased revision petitioner. He proved Exts.P6 to P23 and identified MO1 packet. In spite of cross examination, his evidence remains credible. PW4 is an independent witness. He did not support the prosecution case. PW5 is the peon, attached to the Office of the Food Inspector, Vadakara and he accompanied PW3 at the time of inspection of the grocery shop. He is a witness to Ext.P10 mahazar.
6. The courts below considered the contention of the revision petitioner that the sample taken was not homogeneous mixture and representative of the cumin seed as the Food Inspector did not care to mix up the contents in the packet. This contention was rightly repelled. Considering the entire evidence of the witnesses and the documents produced, Ext.P23 report from the Central Food Laboratory also, it will show that the article sent for analysis was adulterated. On going through the oral and documentary evidence, I am of the view that the courts below rightly found that the deceased revision petitioner was guilty of the aforementioned offences. I do not find any illegality or impropriety in the matter of conviction. Regarding the sentence also, the courts below has only imposed legally justifiable sentence on the deceased revision petitioner, I find no illegality in the matter of sentence. Hence, the criminal revision is dismissed as it is devoid of any merit.
All pending interlocutory applications will stand dismissed.
Sd/- A.HARIPRASAD, JUDGE.
amk //True copy// P.A to Judge