Case Note & Summary
The case involves a criminal revision filed by Rajaram and Nandlal Kanekar, vendors and proprietor of M/s Kumar Masala Gruha Udyog, against their conviction by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhandara, for contravention of Rules 32(b) and (3) and Rule 50 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The trial court sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment for three months. The applicants challenged the conviction primarily on two grounds: first, that notice under Section 13(2) of the Act was not served on them, which is a mandatory requirement; and second, that the licence for manufacturing Garam Masala was not renewed at the time of sampling, though an application for renewal was pending and later granted. The High Court examined the record and found that the postal envelope showed the notice was returned with an endorsement that the applicant was absent, and the trial court in paragraph 16 of its judgment acknowledged this but held that no prejudice was caused. The High Court, relying on the Supreme Court decision in Rameshwar Dayal v. State of U.P., 1995 Supp (4) SCC 659, held that Section 13(2) is mandatory and creates a valuable right in the accused to have the sample examined by the Central Laboratory. Non-compliance of a mandatory provision must result in vitiation of the prosecution, and the trial court erred in dismissing the submission on the ground of no prejudice. Consequently, the High Court allowed the revision, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the applicants.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Food Adulteration - Mandatory Notice under Section 13(2) - Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, Section 13(2) - The court considered whether non-service of notice under Section 13(2) of the Act, which gives the accused a valuable right to have the sample examined by the Central Laboratory, vitiates the prosecution. The trial court had held that no prejudice was caused, but the High Court held that compliance of a mandatory provision is essential and its absence must result in vitiation of prosecution. (Paras 2-5) B) Criminal Law - Food Adulteration - Licence Renewal - Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, Rules 32(b), (3) and 50 - The court noted that the applicant had a licence for the earlier period and had applied for renewal, which was subsequently granted. However, the main ground for acquittal was the non-compliance of Section 13(2) notice. (Paras 3-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether non-service of notice under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, which is mandatory, vitiates the prosecution despite the trial court's finding of no prejudice.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the criminal revision, set aside the judgment and order dated 20.7.2006 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhandara, and acquitted the applicants of the charges.
Law Points
- Mandatory compliance of Section 13(2) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act
- 1954
- Non-compliance vitiates prosecution
- Prejudice not relevant for mandatory provisions
