Case Note & Summary
The case involves a criminal revision application filed by Santosh Dattatreya Mamidwar, the accused, challenging his conviction under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The Food Inspector, Shri Chavan, visited the accused's shop on 6 August 2005 and took a sample of chilly powder weighing 750 gms. The sample was sent to the Public Analyst, and after receiving a report indicating adulteration, a complaint was filed. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yavatmal convicted the accused to rigorous imprisonment for three months and a fine of Rs. 1,000. The appeal before the Sessions Judge was dismissed on 20 January 2015. The accused then filed the present revision. The main legal issues were whether the mandatory provisions of Rules 14 and 22 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 were complied with. The accused argued that the Food Inspector did not personally clean and dry the plastic jar used for sampling, violating Rule 14, and that the sample quantity of 750 gms was insufficient under Rule 22. The court analyzed the cross-examination of the Food Inspector, who admitted that he did not clean the container himself and that the sample quantity was less than required. The court held that compliance with these rules is mandatory and non-compliance is fatal to the prosecution. Consequently, the court allowed the revision, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the accused.
Headnote
A) Prevention of Food Adulteration - Sampling Procedure - Rule 14 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 - Mandatory Compliance - The Food Inspector must personally clean and dry the container before taking sample; failure to do so vitiates the sampling process. In this case, the Food Inspector admitted that he did not personally clean the plastic jar, and no one was directed to clean it. Held that non-compliance with Rule 14 is fatal to prosecution (Paras 5-6). B) Prevention of Food Adulteration - Sample Quantity - Rule 22 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 - Sufficiency of Sample - The sample taken must be in sufficient quantity as prescribed. The Food Inspector admitted that the sample of chilly powder was only 750 gms, which is less than the required quantity. Held that non-compliance with Rule 22 also vitiates the conviction (Para 7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 is sustainable when mandatory provisions of Rules 14 and 22 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 were not complied with during sampling.
Final Decision
The revision application is allowed. The judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yavatmal in Regular Criminal Case No. 7/2012 and confirmed by the Sessions Judge, Yavatmal in Regular Criminal Appeal No. 7/2012 are set aside. The accused is acquitted of the offences charged. His bail bonds stand cancelled.
Law Points
- Mandatory compliance with sampling rules
- Rule 14 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules
- 1955
- Rule 22 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules
- Sufficiency of sample quantity
- Personal cleaning of container by Food Inspector
