Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra appealed against the acquittal of the respondent-accused for offences under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The prosecution case was that on 30-9-1998, Food Inspector Jaywant Deokar purchased six poly-packed packets of Goa Guthaka from the accused's shop, each weighing 105 grams, for Rs.360. After purchase, he issued a notice under Section 14-A of the PFA Act and divided the purchased items into three equal parts, sealed them, and sent one sample to the Public Analyst. The Public Analyst's report dated 13-10-1998 opined that the sample contained magnesium carbonate, contravening the PFA Rules. The accused pleaded not guilty. The trial court acquitted the accused on the ground that the sampling procedure under the PFA Rules was not complied with. The High Court examined the evidence, particularly the testimony of PW-1 (Food Inspector). The court noted inconsistencies: PW-1 stated he purchased six packets but later said he divided the sample into three parts, which would be impossible if each packet was separately packed. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove that the sample was divided into three parts and sealed as per Rule 22 of the PFA Rules, 1955. The court held that non-compliance with mandatory sampling procedure vitiates the prosecution. The appeal was dismissed, and the acquittal was upheld.
Headnote
A) Prevention of Food Adulteration - Sampling Procedure - Rule 22 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 - Mandatory Compliance - The prosecution failed to prove that the sample was divided into three parts and sealed as per Rule 22. The Food Inspector's testimony was inconsistent regarding the number of packets purchased and the manner of division. Held that non-compliance with mandatory sampling procedure vitiates the prosecution and acquittal is justified (Paras 5-8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in acquitting the accused on the ground that the sampling procedure under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 was not complied with.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The order and judgment dated 1-10-2003 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Satara, acquitting the respondent-accused is upheld.
Law Points
- Non-compliance with mandatory sampling procedure under Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules
- 1955
- Rule 22 vitiates prosecution
- Acquittal upheld if sampling procedure not strictly followed
- Burden on prosecution to prove compliance with sampling rules
