Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court dealt with a criminal appeal arising from a conviction under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The appellant, a milk vendor, was prosecuted after a Food Inspector took milk samples on 19-03-1983 under Section 10(7) of the Act. The sample was sent for analysis on 21-03-1983, and the Public Analyst's report dated 30-03-1983 found milk fat at 4.8% and milk solids non-fat at 6.36%, against prescribed standards of 4.5% and 8.5% respectively, opining that the milk was adulterated. The Magistrate convicted the appellant under Section 7 read with Section 16, imposing a minimum sentence of six months and a fine of Rs 1000. The appellate court confirmed the conviction, and in Revision No. 61 of 1991, the High Court reduced the sentence to three months imprisonment and a fine of Rs 500. The appellant then approached the Supreme Court by special leave, contending that considerable delay in prosecuting the case and in forwarding the sample to the Central Food Laboratory caused prejudice warranting acquittal. The Court examined Section 13(2) of the Act, which gives the accused a right to apply within ten days for the sample to be sent to the Central Food Laboratory, and Rule 9-A which mandates the local authority to forward the analyst's report after institution of prosecution. Relying on its earlier decisions in Babu Lal Hargovindas v. State of Gujarat, Ajit Prasad Ramkishan Singh v. State of Maharashtra, and Tulsiram v. State of M.P., the Court held that non-availment of the Section 13(2) remedy precludes the accused from complaining about delay unless other prejudice is shown. The Court noted that the report was sent within ten days of filing the prosecution, though service was disputed, but this factual issue had not been raised in the lower courts. Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and the three-month sentence.
Headnote
A) Food Adulteration - Right to Central Food Laboratory Analysis - Section 13(2) Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - Accused's failure to apply under Section 13(2) precludes plea of prejudice from delay in prosecution - The appellant argued delay in prosecution and in forwarding sample to Central Food Laboratory caused prejudice; Court held that under Section 13(2) accused has right to apply within prescribed period for sample to be sent to Central Food Laboratory; since appellant admittedly never availed this remedy, no prejudice could be inferred from delay; conviction under Sections 7/16 upheld. (Paras 3-10) B) Food Adulteration - Procedural Requirement of Rule 9-A - Rule 9-A Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules - Directory nature and effect of non-compliance - Rule 9-A requires local authority to forward copy of analyst's report to accused after prosecution; Court followed Tulsiram v. State of M.P. that Rule 9-A is directory and accused who does not apply for Central Food Laboratory analysis cannot complain about delay unless other prejudice shown; here record showed report sent within 10 days of filing prosecution, though service disputed, but factual issue not raised in courts below; hence no interference. (Paras 5-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant suffered prejudice due to delay in laying prosecution and in receipt of the Public Analyst's report, entitling him to acquittal under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and Rule 9-A.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed; conviction under Section 7 read with Section 16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and sentence of three months' imprisonment and fine of Rs 500 confirmed.
Law Points
- Accused must avail Section 13(2) remedy to send sample to Central Food Laboratory
- delay in prosecution alone not sufficient for acquittal
- Rule 9-A is directory
- no prejudice inferred if Section 13(2) not invoked
