இது நம்ம ஸ்டைலுங்கோ

செவிக்கு உணவில்லாதபோது சிறிது வயிற்றுக்கும் ஈயப்படும்.

Tuesday 24 November 2009

வழக்கு வாதுரை மாதிரி

In the Court of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tirunelveli.

S.T.C.No.491/2007.

Food Inspector, / Complainant.
Tirunelveli Corporation. /


/ Accused.


Written argument notes on behalf of the Complainant under Sec. 314 Cr.P.C.

The facts of the Prosecution case is that the Complainant Food Inspector has taken “Raja’s Turmeric Powder”, as food sample from the accused A-1,Thiru. . . . . . . . who was selling the “Raja’s Turmeric Powder” at . . . .,Trichendur Road, Palayamcottai following the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act & Rules and sent it for analysis. A-2, Thiru.. . . . . . . is the Proprietor of the . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. which manufactured the “Raja’s Turmeric Powder”. On the basis of the Public Analyst’s report, the accused was charged under Sec. 7(i), 7(ii) , 16(1) (a) (i) r/w 2(ia)(a)&(m), 2(ix) (k) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act,1954 and under the Rules 32(f)&(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 for selling the adulterated and misbranded “Raja’s Turmeric Powder”. On the complainant side, the following witnesses were examined.
PW-1: Thiru.A.R.Sankaralingam,FoodInspector(who lifted the food sample)

PW-2: Thiru.I.S.Natarajan, Independent witness.
Totally 21 exhibits were marked.

PW-1, in his evidence has clearly deposed regarding his inspection at the place of sampling and lifting the sample from the accused according to the procedures to be complied with and his sending of the same for analysis complying the procedures, filing of chargesheet, & the service of 13(2) notice by the Local Health Authority before this Honourable court.
Now the points for consideration in this case are the following:
The defence counsel has raised untenable contentions regarding the lifting of sample by putting forward an imaginary story. The complainant is strongly objecting the same since the contention of the defence counsel is false & vexatious. The PW-1 has complied all the formalities without any flaw in whatsoever manner.
The next point put forward by the defence counsel at the time of trial was that the PW-2, the independent witness has turned hostile and there is no corroboration to substantiate the evidence of the PW-1. In this aspect, I humbly invite your Honour’s kind attention to the Judgement of the Honourable Supreme court of India (A.I.R.-1992. S.C. 1121) in which the Honourable Supreme Court has viewed that the corroboration of Independent witness is not necessary.
The next point put forward by the defence counsel at the time of trial was that the Form-VI addressed to the manufacturer is not prepared at the place of sampling and that the signature of the independent witness is not obtained on it. It is clearly stated in the complaint lodged and in the deposition of the Food Inspector that the Form-VI was prepared after coming back to the office. Moreover, the Form-VI to the manufacturer marked as Ex-P-3 was sent by Courier Post as the manufacturer is living outside the Corporation limit. The signature of the Independent Witness is obtained on the Form-VI served to the A-1 marked as Ex-P-2, as it was prepared and served to the A-1 in the presence of Independent witness. But it is not possible to obtain the signature of the Independent witness on the Form-VI served by post.
The next point put forward by the defence counsel at the time of trial was that the date put below the signature of the Independent witness is corrected. It is an overwriting done by the Independent witness himself with his own pen and not by anybody else and not a correction of the date as contended by the defence counsel.
The next point put forward by the defence counsel at the time of trial was that the notice under section 13(2) was not served on 06.03.2007. The accused A-1 has signed with date in the copy of the 13(2) notice marked as Ex-P-18 and in the Form-III marked as Ex-P-19. The A-2 has signed with date in the Acknowledgement Card sent along with the Registered Post containing the 13(2) notice and the Form-III report.
It is respectfully submitted that the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High High Court in 1992 (2) – FAC Page 232 held that
“ PFA Act, 1954- Section 13 (2) – delay in prosecution – challan was filed 18.11.1967 and the petitioner appeared before the trial Magistrate on 20.12.1967 ie., about 4 ½ months after. But the petitioner never made a demand in the trial Court for examination of the sample bottle with him by the Director of Central Food Laboratory. There being no application for such examination, as contemplated by Section 13(1) of the Act, it is not open to the Petitioner to contest that any prejudice was caused to him by the delay in launching the prosecution”.
The defence counsel has raised untenable contentions regarding the lifting of sample by putting forward an imaginary story. The defence counsel has put forward an imaginary and false story that the Turmeric Powder which was lifted as food sample does not belong to the same Batch. The non-mentioning of the “Batch No.”, “Manufacturing date” and the “Best before date” are the offences committed by the manufacturer and the same has been mentioned in the Form-III report of the Public Analyst. Hence the Food Inspector has collected the food sample of 18 “Raja’s Turmeric Powder” packets from the available 25 packets, which is clearly deposed in the evidence of the PW-1.
The next point put forward by the defence counsel at the time of trial was that the method of analysis has not been mentioned in the Form-III report. The Form-III marked as Ex-P-14 has disclosed the “Name of method of test used” as DGHS manual method.
The next point put forward by the defence counsel at the time of trial was that the quantity of food sample was less than the prescribed in the Rule 22 of the PFA Rules, 1955. S.No.17 in Rule 22 prescribes the approximate quantity to be supplied as 150 grams for spices. The turmeric powder comes under this category and the Food Inspector has lifted 300 grams of “Raja’s Turmeric Powder” per part which is more than sufficient for analysis.
The evidence of the PW-1 from visiting the shop of the accused, lifting the sample, sending the same for analysis to the Public Analyst and subsequently filing the chargesheet and the admission of the signature by the PW-2, clearly proves the complainant’s case.
The Complainant had observed all the mandatory provisions of the PFA Act & Rules and has proved the case beyond all doubts and prays that this Honourable court be pleased to deal with the accused in accordance with law and thus render justice.



Assistant Public Prosecutor Gr.II
Tirunelveli.
Follow FOODNELLAI on Twitter

No comments: