Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra appealed against the judgment and order dated 23.3.2000 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Akola, District Ahmednagar, in Regular Criminal Case No.151 of 1994, acquitting the respondents (accused Nos.1 to 4) for the offence punishable under Section 7(i) read with Rule 50, punishable under Sections 16 and 17 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (PFA Act). The factual matrix reveals that PW1 Complainant R.D. Kokadwar, a Food Inspector appointed under Section 9 of the PFA Act, along with panch witness and another Food Inspector, visited the premises of accused No.4 on 24.3.1994 at about 7.25 p.m. following a news report about food poisoning to 114 students due to milk consumption. Accused No.3 was looking after the business. The complainant collected a sample of milk and sent it to the Public Analyst, who reported it as adulterated. The trial court acquitted the accused on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove that the Food Inspector added preservative to the milk sample as required under Rule 50 of the PFA Rules, and that the sample was not dispatched to the Public Analyst within a reasonable time. The High Court, after hearing the parties, found no merit in the appeal. The court held that the prosecution must strictly comply with the mandatory provisions of the Act and Rules, and the failure to add preservative and delay in sending the sample to the Public Analyst were fatal to the prosecution. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the acquittal was upheld.
Headnote
A) Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - Section 7(i) read with Rule 50 - Sampling Procedure - Non-Compliance - The prosecution failed to prove that the Food Inspector added preservative to the milk sample as required under Rule 50 of the PFA Rules, and the sample was not dispatched to the Public Analyst within a reasonable time. Held that such non-compliance vitiates the prosecution and the accused are entitled to acquittal. (Paras 5-8) B) Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - Section 7(i) read with Rule 50 - Burden of Proof - The burden is on the prosecution to establish strict compliance with the mandatory provisions of the Act and Rules. Failure to do so results in acquittal. (Paras 5-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the acquittal of the accused for offence under Section 7(i) read with Rule 50 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 is sustainable in law, particularly in light of alleged non-compliance with mandatory sampling procedures.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The judgment and order of acquittal dated 23.3.2000 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Akola, in Regular Criminal Case No.151 of 1994 is confirmed.
Law Points
- Non-compliance with mandatory sampling procedure
- Failure to add preservative to milk sample
- Non-dispatch of sample to public analyst within reasonable time
- Acquittal upheld
