Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra appealed against the judgment of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad, in R.C.C. No. 338 of 1997, decided on 28.09.1999, whereby the respondents were acquitted of offences punishable under sections 7(i) read with section 2(ia)(a) & section 2(ia)(i), r/w section 16(1A)(i) and section 16(i)(a)(ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The case arose from a complaint filed by the Food Inspector alleging that the respondents sold adulterated food. During trial, the accused applied to send the sample to the Director of Central Food Laboratory under Section 13(2) of the Act, but the trial court did not comply. The trial court acquitted the respondents on the ground that the mandatory procedure under Section 13(2) was not followed, thereby denying the accused their right to have the sample analyzed by a higher authority. The State appealed, arguing that the acquittal was erroneous. The High Court examined the record and found that the trial court had indeed failed to send the sample despite the accused's application. The High Court held that the right under Section 13(2) is a valuable right and its denial vitiates the prosecution. The court further noted that in an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court should not interfere unless the findings are perverse or unreasonable. Since the trial court's decision was based on a valid legal ground, the High Court found no reason to interfere. The appeal was dismissed and the acquittal was upheld.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Food Adulteration - Right to Send Sample to Central Food Laboratory - Section 13(2) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - The accused has a statutory right to have the sample analyzed by the Director of Central Food Laboratory. The trial court's failure to send the sample despite the accused's application amounts to denial of that right, rendering the conviction unsustainable. (Para 3) B) Criminal Law - Food Adulteration - Acquittal - Appeal Against Acquittal - Section 378 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - In an appeal against acquittal, the High Court will not interfere unless the findings are perverse or unreasonable. The trial court's acquittal based on non-compliance with mandatory procedure was not perverse. (Para 4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the acquittal of the respondents for offences under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 was proper when the sample was not sent to the Director of Central Food Laboratory as per Section 13(2) of the Act.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the acquittal of the respondents.
Law Points
- Right of accused to have sample analyzed by Central Food Laboratory under Section 13(2) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act
- 1954 is mandatory and cannot be denied
- non-compliance vitiates conviction
- acquittal upheld.
