Case Note & Summary
The case arose under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, where the appellant, a milk vendor, was accused of selling adulterated milk. The Food Inspector had purchased a sample of milk, which was later found to have a deficiency in solids non-fats, leading to a conviction by the trial court. The appellant contended that there was non-compliance with Rule 9(j), which requires the report of the Analyst to be sent by registered post. The trial court deemed this rule as directory and convicted the appellant, a decision that was later upheld by the High Court. In the Supreme Court, the appellant reiterated the argument regarding the procedural compliance and claimed prejudice due to the lack of evidence showing that the report was sent by registered post. However, the court noted that the Food Inspector had testified that the report was sent by registered post and the appellant was not cross-examined on this point, leading to the inference that the report was received. The court acknowledged that the adulteration was minor and, while confirming the conviction, reduced the sentence to three months' rigorous imprisonment, maintaining the fine with a default clause. The appeal was dismissed with this modification.
Headnote
A) Food Law - Compliance with Procedural Rules - Rule 9(j) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act - The trial court held that Rule 9(j) was directory and convicted the appellant, which was upheld by the High Court. The Supreme Court noted that the Food Inspector's testimony indicated the report was sent to the accused, thus rendering the procedural compliance issue less significant. Held that the conviction was confirmed but the sentence was reduced (Paras 1-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the procedural requirements under Rule 9(j) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act were complied with and the nature of the adulteration.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court confirmed the conviction of the appellant under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act but reduced the sentence to three months' rigorous imprisonment while maintaining the fine with a default clause.
Law Points
- Food adulteration
- compliance with procedural rules
- minor adulteration
- sentencing discretion
