Case Note & Summary
This case arose from a complaint filed by Ajay Paul, an advocate, who purchased adulterated Limca and fell ill after consumption. Following the incident, he served a notice to the accused, who were associated with Coca Cola India, alleging injury due to the adulterated product. Dissatisfied with their response, he filed a complaint under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The Magistrate examined the complainant and witnesses, and cognizance was taken after receiving the Public Analyst's report. However, the accused challenged the proceedings, leading to the High Court quashing the case against two of the accused while dismissing the petition concerning the Manager, accused No.3. The Supreme Court, upon hearing arguments, focused on the statutory requirements for filing a complaint under the Act. It noted that the complainant failed to comply with the necessary procedures, such as informing the vendor of the intention to analyze the food and producing the public analyst's report with the complaint. The court referenced the principle that if a power is given to do something in a specific way, it must be done that way or not at all, citing the case of Nazir Ahmad Vs. King Emperor. Ultimately, the Supreme Court quashed the proceedings against accused No.3, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the statutory framework established by the Act.
Headnote
A) Food Law - Complaint Procedure - Non-compliance with Statutory Requirements - Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, Sections 12, 20 - The court held that a complaint for food adulteration must comply with the specific procedures outlined in the Act, including the requirement to inform the vendor of the intention to analyze the food and to produce the public analyst's report with the complaint. The absence of these steps rendered the complaint invalid, leading to the quashing of proceedings against the accused (Paras 5-9).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the complaint under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was maintainable in the absence of compliance with the statutory procedure.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and quashed the proceedings against accused No.3, stating that the complaint was not authorized in law due to non-compliance with the statutory requirements.
Law Points
- Food adulteration
- complaint procedure
- public analyst report
- cognizance of offences
- statutory compliance
