Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra, through the Food Inspector, appealed against the judgment and order dated 11/10/2000 passed by the 6th Judicial Magistrate First Class, Akola in Criminal Case No. 1055 of 1995, whereby the respondents-accused were acquitted of offences punishable under Section 7(1) read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) and (ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The prosecution case was that on 10/1/1992, the Food Inspector collected a sample of Sunflower Seed Oil from the shop of M/s Rafik Traders, Akola, where respondent No. 1 was the vendor and respondent No. 2 was the proprietor. The sample was sent to the Public Analyst at Pune, who reported it as adulterated. The accused exercised their right under Section 13(2) of the Act and sent a part of the sample to the Central Food Laboratory, Gaziyabad. The Director of the Central Food Laboratory reported that the sample was not adulterated. The trial court acquitted the accused, giving them the benefit of doubt due to the discrepancy between the two reports and the prosecution's failure to prove compliance with the sampling procedure. The High Court upheld the acquittal, noting that the report of the Director supersedes that of the Public Analyst, and the prosecution did not establish that the sample was taken and handled according to the mandatory procedures. The appeal against respondent No. 1 abated due to his death. The court dismissed the appeal, confirming the acquittal.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Food Adulteration - Discrepancy in Analyst Reports - Section 13(2) Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - The accused sent a sample to the Central Food Laboratory under Section 13(2) and the report from the Director showed the sample was not adulterated, contradicting the Public Analyst's report. The court held that the report of the Director supersedes that of the Public Analyst, and the benefit of doubt must go to the accused. (Paras 4-5) B) Criminal Law - Food Adulteration - Sampling Procedure - Section 11(1)(c)(i) Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - The prosecution failed to prove that the sample was taken in accordance with the prescribed procedure, including proper sealing and sending of samples. The court noted that the panchanama and other documents did not establish compliance, leading to the conclusion that the prosecution case was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 3-4) C) Criminal Procedure - Abatement of Appeal - Death of Accused - The appeal against respondent No. 1 abated as he died on 5/2/2009 and no legal representative applied for continuation. (Para 1)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the acquittal of the respondents-accused for offences under Section 7(1) read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) and (ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 was justified in light of the discrepancy between the reports of the Public Analyst and the Director of the Central Food Laboratory, and whether the prosecution complied with the mandatory sampling and analysis procedures.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal, confirming the acquittal of the respondents-accused. The appeal against respondent No. 1 abated due to his death.
Law Points
- Discrepancy between Public Analyst and Central Food Laboratory reports
- Non-compliance with sampling procedure under PFA Act
- Right of accused under Section 13(2) PFA Act
- Burden of proof on prosecution
- Abatement of appeal on death of accused
