Case Note & Summary
The Municipal Corporation of Delhi appealed by special leave against the acquittal of Ghisa Ram, a halwai dealing in milk products, from charges under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The Food Inspector took a sample of curd from the respondent's shop on September 20, 1961. The sample was divided into three parts, one given to the respondent, one sent to the Public Analyst, and one retained. The Public Analyst analysed the sample on October 3, 1961, and issued a certificate on October 23, 1961, finding fat content 11.6% and non-fatty solids 7.3%, which was 1.2% below the prescribed minimum of 8.5% for cow's milk curd. Based on this report, a complaint was filed on May 23, 1962, seven months after receipt of the report. On October 4, 1963, the respondent applied under Section 13(2) of the Act to have his sample analysed by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory. The Director reported that the sample had become highly decomposed and no analysis was possible. The trial court acquitted the respondent, accepting his contention that he could not be convicted after being denied his right to obtain the Director's certificate due to the delay in launching prosecution. The Punjab High Court upheld the acquittal. The appellant contended before the Supreme Court that the absence of a Director's certificate did not affect the validity of the Public Analyst's report, which remained evidence. The respondent argued that he had a valuable right under Section 13(2) and denial of that right due to prosecution delay prejudiced his defence. The Supreme Court agreed that generally the absence of a Director's certificate does not invalidate the Public Analyst's report, which continues to be evidence. However, the Court held that Section 13(2) confers a valuable right on the accused vendor to have his sample analysed by a superior expert whose certificate would supersede the Public Analyst's report and be conclusive evidence. This right is meaningful only if the prosecution proceeds in a manner that does not frustrate it. In the present case, the sample was taken on September 20, 1961. Without preservative, curd remains analysable for about 17 days at room temperature, but with preservative it remains analysable for four months. The Food Inspector did not add preservative to the sample given to the respondent. The complaint was filed on May 23, 1962, long after the 17-day period, so the respondent's right under Section 13(2) could never have been effectively exercised because the sample would already have decomposed. The Court held that where denial of this right is due to deliberate conduct of the prosecution, the accused is seriously prejudiced and cannot be convicted on the basis of the Public Analyst's report alone. It clarified that not every frustration of the right would bar conviction; only when the prosecution is responsible. Here, the prosecution should have anticipated delay and added preservative, and should have launched prosecution within time. Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the acquittal.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Food Adulteration - Right to Sample Analysis by Director of Central Food Laboratory - Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, Sections 13(2), 13(3), 13(5), 16 - The accused vendor had a statutory right under Section 13(2) to have the sample given to him analysed by the Director of Central Food Laboratory after prosecution was instituted; such certificate would supersede the Public Analyst's report and be conclusive evidence under Section 13(3) and the proviso to Section 13(5). Due to the prosecution's delay in filing the complaint (seven months after the Public Analyst's report) and failure to add preservative, the sample decomposed and the Director could not analyse it, thereby denying the accused a valuable right and prejudicing his defence. The Supreme Court upheld the acquittal, holding that where denial of this right is attributable to the prosecution's conduct, conviction cannot rest solely on the Public Analyst's report. Held: Prosecution delay causing sample decomposition frustrates statutory right and bars conviction based on Public Analyst's report.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the accused vendor can be convicted on the basis of the Public Analyst's report when his right under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 to have the sample analysed by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory was frustrated due to decomposition caused by delay in launching prosecution.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed. The Supreme Court upheld the acquittal, holding that the respondent was denied a valuable right under Section 13(2) of the Act due to inordinate delay in launching prosecution, and was prejudiced; conviction could not be based on Public Analyst's report.
Law Points
- Right under Section 13(2) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act
- 1954 to have sample analysed by Director of Central Food Laboratory is a valuable right for accused vendor
- certificate of Director supersedes report of Public Analyst under Section 13(3) and is conclusive evidence under proviso to Section 13(5)
- absence of Director's certificate does not ipso facto invalidate Public Analyst's report
- but where denial of this right is caused by deliberate conduct of prosecution
- accused is seriously prejudiced and cannot be convicted on basis of Public Analyst's report alone
- prosecution must ensure sample given to accused remains fit for analysis by adding preservative and launching prosecution within reasonable time
