Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a prosecution under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, where the appellant was convicted for selling adulterated chana daal without a licence. On 16 January 2002, a Food Inspector purchased samples from the appellant in a weekly market, and the Public Analyst report indicated adulteration. The Judicial Magistrate First Class convicted the appellant on 12 October 2007, imposing six months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine, which was upheld by the Sessions Court and the High Court in revision. The core legal issue was whether the mandatory service of the Public Analyst report under Section 13(2) of the Act was complied with, as the appellant argued that non-service deprived him of the right to challenge the report and seek analysis by the Central Food Laboratory. The appellant contended that the report was not served, relying on endorsements by a Postman that were not proved by examination, while the respondent-State argued that sending the report by registered post sufficed under Rule 9B of the Rules. The Supreme Court analyzed Section 13(2), emphasizing that service, not mere dispatch, is mandatory to protect the accused's defense rights, including the option to apply for re-analysis within ten days. Citing Vijendra v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the court held that non-service vitiates the prosecution. It found the High Court's reliance on unproven postal endorsements erroneous and noted no attempt at personal service after return. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Food Adulteration - Mandatory Service of Public Analyst Report - Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, Section 13(2) - The appellant was convicted for selling adulterated chana daal without a licence - The prosecution alleged that a copy of the Public Analyst report was sent by registered post but returned unserved - The Supreme Court held that mere dispatch of the report is insufficient; service on the accused is mandatory to enable the right to challenge the report and apply for analysis by Central Food Laboratory - Non-compliance vitiates the prosecution, requiring acquittal (Paras 5, 8). B) Evidence Law - Proof of Service - Examination of Postman - Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, Rule 9B - The High Court relied on endorsements by a Postman on a postal envelope to infer refusal by the appellant - The Supreme Court found this erroneous as the Postman was not examined to prove the endorsements, and no attempt was made to personally serve the report after return - Held that the mandatory requirement under Section 13(2) was not complied with, rendering the conviction unsustainable (Paras 6-8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the mandatory requirement of serving a copy of the Public Analyst report under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 was complied with, and if non-compliance vitiates the conviction
Final Decision
Appeal allowed; impugned Judgment and Order of High Court set aside; conviction of appellant set aside; appellant acquitted
Law Points
- Mandatory service of Public Analyst report under Section 13(2) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act
- 1954
- Right to challenge report and send sample to Central Food Laboratory
- Presumption of service not drawn without examination of Postman
- Non-compliance vitiates prosecution
