Case Note & Summary
The case arose out of a food adulteration prosecution initiated by the Food Inspector against the applicants, who operated a kirana shop at Malkapur. On 6th October 1995, the Food Inspector visited their shop and collected a sample of 'Rava' from a 50 kg bag. The sample was sent to the Chemical Analyzer, Pune on 7th October 1995, and examined on 15th November 1995. The Analyst's report (Exh.48) noted the presence of dead grubs and opined that the article was unfit for human consumption. Based on this, the Food Inspector filed a complaint under various sections of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The trial court, after considering evidence, convicted the applicants on 5th August 2003 for offences under Sections 7(i) read with Section 2(ia)(a), Section 16(1)(a)(ii), 17, 7(i) and Section 2(ia)(f) of the Act. The applicants' appeal was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Malkapur on 9th July 2012. Aggrieved, the applicants approached the High Court in revision. The core legal issues were whether the mandatory provisions of Rules 14, 16, and 22 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, which govern the procedure for drawing, sealing, and sending samples, were complied with, and whether the sample could be deemed adulterated without an express opinion from the Analyst that it was injurious to health. The applicants argued that the Food Inspector had not followed the mandatory rules; the panchnama (Exh.28) recorded at the time of sampling did not mention any dead grubs, suggesting that infestation may have occurred later during transit or due to the one-month delay before analysis. They further submitted that the Analyst's report merely stated the presence of dead grubs but did not opine that the article was injurious to health, a necessary ingredient under the Act as interpreted in State of Maharashtra v. Sunil Bansilal Jain (2007(1) B Cr C 167). The State, on the other hand, supported the concurrent findings of the courts below. The High Court, relying on earlier decisions in Santosh Dattatreya Mamidwar v. State of Maharashtra and Madhav Nagnath Wattamwar v. State of Maharashtra, held that Rules 14, 16, and 22 are mandatory and must be strictly followed. The panchnama's silence on the presence of dead grubs and the lack of evidence that the sample jar was dry and clean created a significant doubt about the authenticity of the sample. The gap of over a month between sampling and analysis raised a real possibility that the infestation developed subsequently. Moreover, the court emphasized that under the Act, a food article can be held adulterated only if it is shown to be injurious to health. The Analyst's report did not contain such an opinion. Consequently, the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The revision was allowed, the impugned judgments were set aside, the applicants were acquitted, and the fine, if paid, was ordered to be refunded. The decision reaffirms that strict adherence to procedural safeguards and a clear opinion on health hazard are indispensable in food adulteration prosecutions.
Headnote
A) Food Adulteration - Compliance with Mandatory Sampling Rules - Non-compliance with Rules 14, 16, and 22 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules vitiates the prosecution - Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, Sections 7(i), 16(1)(a)(ii), 17; Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, Rules 14, 16, 22 - The Food Inspector must strictly follow the mandatory rules for drawing, sealing, and sending samples. In this case, the panchnama (Exh.28) did not note dead grubs at the time of sampling, indicating lack of proper care; the sample was examined after one month, raising the possibility of infestation during transit. Held that non-compliance with mandatory rules entitled the accused to acquittal (Paras 5, 7-8). B) Food Adulteration - Requirement of Opinion on Injuriousness - For a food article to be deemed adulterated under Section 2(ia), there must be an opinion that it is injurious to health - Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, Sections 2(ia)(a), 2(ia)(f), 7(i), 16(1)(a)(ii), 17 - Relying on State of Maharashtra v. Sunil Bansilal Jain (2007(1) B Cr C 167), the court held that unless the Public Analyst or Director opines that the food article is injurious to health, it cannot be held adulterated. The analyst's report (Exh.48) merely noted dead grubs but did not state it was injurious. Held that in absence of such opinion, the accused could not be convicted (Paras 9-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 is sustainable when mandatory rules regarding sampling, sealing, and opinion on injuriousness are not complied with
Final Decision
The revision was allowed. The impugned judgments of the trial court and appellate court were quashed and set aside. The accused were acquitted of the offence charged. Bail bonds cancelled. Fine amount, if any paid, to be refunded.
Law Points
- Mandatory compliance with Rules 14
- 16 and 22 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules
- necessity of opinion that food article is injurious to health to constitute adulteration under Sections 7 and 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act
- sample collection and sealing must be done with care
- possibility of contamination during transit or time lapse can vitiate conviction
