Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra appealed against the acquittal of the respondent-accused Suryabhan Ukarda Rokade for offences under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The case arose from an incident on 26 October 1989 when Food Inspector G.D. Kamble visited the accused's kirana shop in Balapur and took a sample of palm oil from a loose barrel of about 180 kg capacity containing approximately 90 kg of oil. The sample was sent to the Public Analyst, who reported that it did not conform to the standards under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. Sanction was obtained, and the accused was charged and tried before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Balapur, who acquitted the accused on 27 July 2000. The State appealed. During the appeal, accused No. 2 (Ukarda Ramchandra Rokade) died, and the appeal abated against him. The High Court considered the submissions of the learned APP, who argued that the Trial Court erred in not accepting the Food Inspector's evidence on the ground that it was not corroborated. However, the High Court noted that the sampling procedure under Rule 22 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 was not followed, as the oil was not mixed or stirred before taking the sample from the bulk container. The Food Inspector's evidence indicated that he took the sample without mixing the oil, which was mandatory to ensure a representative sample. The panch witness was also not examined. Consequently, the High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and upheld the acquittal. The appeal was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Prevention of Food Adulteration - Sampling Procedure - Rule 22 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 - Bulk Container - The Food Inspector took a sample of palm oil from a loose barrel of 180 kg capacity containing about 90 kg oil without mixing the oil before sampling. The Court held that the procedure under Rule 22 was not followed as the oil was not stirred or mixed to ensure a representative sample. The acquittal was upheld as the prosecution failed to prove compliance with mandatory sampling rules. (Paras 1-3)
B) Prevention of Food Adulteration - Evidence of Food Inspector - Corroboration - The Trial Court acquitted the accused on the ground that the Food Inspector's evidence was not corroborated. The High Court found that the Food Inspector's testimony alone could be sufficient if reliable, but in this case, the sampling procedure was not properly followed, and the panch witness was not examined. The acquittal was upheld. (Paras 2-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the acquittal of the accused for offences under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 was proper given the alleged non-compliance with sampling procedure under Rule 22 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The acquittal of the respondent is upheld.
Law Points
- Prevention of Food Adulteration Act
- 1954
- Section 7(1)
- Section 2(ia)(a)
- Section 16(1)(ii)
- Section 7(i)
- Section 2(ia)
- Section 16(1)(a)(i)
- Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules
- 1955
- Rule 22
- Sampling procedure
- Bulk container
- Mixing of oil
- Food Inspector's duty
- Acquittal upheld
Case Details
2012 LawText (BOM) (07) 173
Criminal Appeal No. 287 of 2000
Ms R. A. Deshpande, APP for the State/Appellant, Mr. Amol Mardikar, Advocate for the Respondent No. 1 (Appointed)
The State of Maharashtra, through Shri Vilas Tulshiram Patne, Food Inspector
Shri. Suryabhan Ukarda Rokade
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Appeal against acquittal in a food adulteration case
Remedy Sought
The State of Maharashtra sought conviction of the respondent for offences under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.
Filing Reason
The respondent was acquitted by the Trial Court for alleged non-compliance with sampling procedure.
Previous Decisions
The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Balapur, acquitted the accused on 27/07/2000 in Regular Criminal Case No. 34 of 1999.
Issues
Whether the sampling procedure under Rule 22 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 was followed?
Whether the acquittal of the accused was justified?
Submissions/Arguments
Learned APP submitted that the Trial Court erred in not accepting the evidence of the Food Inspector on the ground that it was not corroborated.
The respondent argued that the sampling procedure was not followed as the oil was not mixed before sampling.
Ratio Decidendi
The prosecution failed to prove compliance with Rule 22 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, which requires mixing of the contents of a bulk container before taking a sample. The Food Inspector's evidence showed that he did not mix the oil before sampling, rendering the sample unreliable. Hence, the acquittal was upheld.
Judgment Excerpts
This appeal is directed against the Judgment and order dated 27/07/2000, passed by Judicial Magistrate First class, Balapur, District Akola in Regular Criminal Case No. 34 of 1999 whereby the the respondent/accused was acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 7(1) read with Section 2(ia)(a) punishable under Section 16(1)(ii) and under Section 7(i) read with Section 2(ia) punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act , 1954.
Facts briefly stated are : - Shri G. D Kamble, Food Inspector visited the firm M/s Ukhrda Ramchandra Kirana Shop on 26/10/1989 at about 10.20 a.m. at Balapur along with a Pancha Abdul Rauf. The Respondent accused was present in the shop doing the business. Shri Kamble after disclosing his identity inspected the shop and found the accused selling palm oil from a loose and unlabeled barrel of about 180 kg capacity, containing about 90 kg palm oil in it. Shri Kamble took sample from the said oil barrel for test and analysis.
Learned A.P.P. submitted that the Trial Court erred not to accept the evidence of the Food Inspector on the ground that it was not corroborated.
Procedural History
The Food Inspector filed a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Balapur, which was registered as Regular Criminal Case No. 34 of 1999. The Trial Court acquitted the accused on 27/07/2000. The State appealed to the High Court, which was registered as Criminal Appeal No. 287 of 2000. During the appeal, accused No. 2 died and the appeal abated against him. The High Court heard the appeal and dismissed it on 04/07/2012.
Acts & Sections
- Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954: Section 7(1), Section 2(ia)(a), Section 16(1)(ii), Section 7(i), Section 2(ia), Section 16(1)(a)(i)
- Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955: Rule 22
