Case Note & Summary
The case involves two criminal revision applications filed by Jairam Shadija, the accused, challenging the order dated 28.08.2015 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Wardha, which dismissed his appeals and confirmed the conviction and sentence awarded by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Wardha. The accused was convicted under Section 16(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 for selling adulterated groundnut oil and under Section 16(1-C) for carrying on business without a valid license. The incident occurred on 02.12.2002 when Food Inspector Sudam Nandanwar visited the accused's shop 'Umesh Traders' and drew a sample of groundnut oil. The sample was sent to the Public Analyst, who reported it as adulterated. The accused was tried and convicted by the trial court, and his appeals were dismissed by the Sessions Court. In revision, the High Court examined the validity of the sanction for prosecution and the compliance with sampling procedure. The court found that the sanction was validly granted after due application of mind, and the sampling procedure was followed as per rules. The accused failed to rebut the presumption of adulteration. Consequently, the High Court dismissed both revision applications, upholding the conviction and sentence.
Headnote
A) Prevention of Food Adulteration - Conviction under Section 16(1) and Section 16(1-C) - Burden of Proof - The accused was convicted for selling adulterated groundnut oil and carrying on business without a license. The court held that the prosecution proved the sample was adulterated as per the Public Analyst report, and the accused failed to rebut the presumption under Section 14 of the Act. The sanction for prosecution was validly granted after proper application of mind. (Paras 1-10) B) Prevention of Food Adulteration - Sampling Procedure - Compliance with Rules - The Food Inspector followed the prescribed procedure under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 for drawing samples, including giving notice in Form VI and dividing the sample into three parts. The court found no material irregularity vitiating the trial. (Paras 4-8) C) Prevention of Food Adulteration - Sanction for Prosecution - Validity - The sanction order under Section 20 of the Act was examined and found to be valid, as the sanctioning authority had considered the relevant material and applied its mind before granting sanction. (Paras 9-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the applicant under Section 16(1) and Section 16(1-C) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 is sustainable in law, particularly regarding the validity of the sanction for prosecution and compliance with sampling procedure.
Final Decision
Both criminal revision applications are dismissed. The order of conviction and sentence passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Wardha and confirmed by the Sessions Judge, Wardha is upheld.
Law Points
- Prevention of Food Adulteration Act
- 1954
- Section 16(1)
- Section 16(1-C)
- burden of proof on accused
- presumption of adulteration
- validity of sanction
- compliance with sampling procedure
