JUDGMENT

1. The revision petitioners are the two accused persons in C. C. 59 of 1972 on the file of the First Class Magistrate, Shertallai. Each of them was convicted under S.7(i) read with S.16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, for short the Act, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to rigorous imprisonment for two months. Appeal filed by them from their convictions and sentences before the Sessions Judge, Alleppy was unsuccessful.

2. Pw. 1, the Food Inspector of the Shertallai South Panchayat, purchased from the shop of the second accused 600 grams of coffee powder for Rs. 3/-. The second accused was not then there but his salesman, the first accused, was there and it was from him that Pw. 1 purchased coffee powder. Ext. P2 is the receipt received on payment of the price and Ext. P3 is the mahazar prepared after the purchase. The coffee powder purchased was divided into three equal parts and one part was sent to the public analyst who on analysis found that it did not conform to the standard prescribed for coffee powder as it contained 55 percent of chicory. The accused pleaded guilty and on that they were convicted and sentenced as already mentioned.

3. Sale of coffee powder mixed with chicory is no offence. It is not an article prohibited from sale. In fact in Appendix Bin the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, coffee chicory is mentioned as an article of food and in the standard for it prescribed there no mention is made of the proportion of coffee powder and chicory. They can be mixed in any proportion. Coffee chicory can be treated as adulterated food only under S.2(i)(a) of the Act if it is misrepresented to be coffee and on demand for coffee supplied to the purchaser as such.

4. The mahazar shows that there was no label on the tin in which the coffee chicory was stored. There is no averment anywhere in the complaint that the article in question was supplied when demand was made by Pw. 1 for coffee. On the

other hand the complaint and the charge show that the prosecution was for the article purchased not being in conformity with the standard prescribed for coffee. Evidently it was S.2(i)(1) of the Act which says that an article of food shall be deemed to be adulterated if the quality or purity of it falls below the prescribed standard or its constituents are present in quantities which are in excess of the prescribed limits of variability that was in contemplation when the complaint was filed and the charge was framed.

5. It is stated in the Magistrate's judgment that Pw. 1 demanded coffee powder before purchasing it. It is misreading of his deposition. He did not say so.

6. The next question is whether on the plea of guilty the accused can be convicted. A plea of guilty is an admission of all the facts on which the charge is founded and an admission of guilt in respect of them. Where the accused pleads guilty but the act complained of does not amount to an offence the plea of guilty is no more than an admission of the accused that ha bad done the act. In such a case in spite of that admission it is for the Court to decide whether the act that was done constituted an offence. Before convicting an accused on his plea of guilty fairness of trial requires that all the facts constituting the offence and all the elements of the charge should be brought to his notice. In order to sustain a conviction on the plea of an accused it is necessary that he should admit in his plea all the elements of the offence. There is nothing to show that all the elements of the charge were put to the accused persons in the present case before they pleaded guilty. No doubt it is stated in the Magistrate's judgment that the charge was read over and explained in Malayalam to the accused. But that is different from bringing to the notice of the accused all the elements of the charge. Unless the accused distinctly admit each and every fact necessary to constitute the offence they cannot be convicted merely on their plea.

7. The charge here did not say that there was a demand for coffee preceding the sale of 600 grams of coffee chicory. Mere

sale of coffee chicory by itself does not constitute an offence. In such circumstances the conviction of the accused although it is based on a plea of guilty, has to be quashed.

8. In the result this revision petition is allowed, the convictions and sentences of the accused are set aside and the accused are acquitted. Fine if paid shall be refunded to them.

Coram : P. Narayana Pillai, J. ( Kerala High Court)

Party : AUGUSTINE AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF KERALA

CaseNo : Crl. R. P. No. 567 of 1972