Case Note & Summary
The case involves a criminal revision application filed by Nanakram Govardhandas Chandkai and M/s. Gurunanak Supari Bhandar (the applicants/accused) against their conviction under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The prosecution alleged that on 06.10.1995, a Food Inspector visited the applicants' shop and took a sample of 'Rava' from a 50 kg bag. The sample was sent for analysis on 07.10.1995 and examined on 15.11.1995, revealing dead grubs, rendering it unfit for human consumption. The trial court convicted the accused under Sections 7(i) read with 2(ia)(a), 16(1)(a)(ii), 17, 7(i) and 2(ia)(f) of the Act. The appeal was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Malkapur on 09.07.2012. In revision, the applicants argued that the Food Inspector failed to comply with mandatory Rules 14, 16, and 22 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. They also pointed out that the panchnama (Exh.28) did not mention dead grubs at the time of sampling, suggesting that the contamination might have occurred later. The court, after hearing both sides, noted that offences under the Act are technical and require strict compliance with rules. Relying on precedents, the court found that non-compliance with mandatory rules vitiates the conviction. The court allowed the revision, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the applicants.
Headnote
A) Prevention of Food Adulteration - Mandatory Compliance - Rules 14, 16, 22 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 - Non-compliance - The Food Inspector failed to follow mandatory rules while taking and handling the sample of 'Rava'. The court held that strict compliance with these rules is essential for a valid conviction under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. (Paras 5-7)
B) Evidence - Panchnama - Dead Grubs - The panchnama (Exh.28) did not mention dead grubs at the time of sampling. The court considered the possibility that dead grubs developed during transportation or due to passage of time, casting doubt on the prosecution's case. (Para 5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 can be sustained when the Food Inspector failed to comply with mandatory provisions of Rules 14, 16, and 22 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955.
Final Decision
The revision application is allowed. The judgment of conviction dated 05.08.2003 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Malkapur in Regular Criminal Case No. 149 of 1996 and the judgment dated 09.07.2012 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Malkapur in Criminal Appeal No. 33 of 2012 are set aside. The applicants are acquitted of the offences charged.
Law Points
- Non-compliance with mandatory rules
- Rules 14
- 16
- 22 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules
- 1955
- Technical offences
- Burden of strict compliance
Case Details
2019 LawText (BOM) (03) 145
Criminal Revision Application (REVN) No. 124 of 2012
Shri Anil Mardikar, Senior Advocate for the applicants; Ms. T.H. Udeshi, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent/State
Nanakram Govardhandas Chandkai and M/s. Gurunanak Supari Bhandar
State of Maharashtra, through Food Inspector, C/o Assistant Commissioner, Food and Drugs Administration, Administrative Building, In front of Bus Station, Buldana
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal revision against conviction under Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954
Remedy Sought
Applicants sought setting aside of conviction and acquittal
Filing Reason
Non-compliance with mandatory Rules 14, 16, and 22 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 by the Food Inspector
Previous Decisions
Trial court convicted the accused on 05.08.2003; appeal dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge, Malkapur on 09.07.2012
Issues
Whether the conviction can be sustained when the Food Inspector failed to comply with mandatory Rules 14, 16, and 22 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955
Submissions/Arguments
Applicants argued that mandatory provisions of Rules 14, 16, and 22 were not followed by the Food Inspector, citing judgments in Santosh Dattatreya Mamidwar v. State of Maharashtra and Madhav Nagnath Wattamwar v. State of Maharashtra.
Applicants pointed out that the panchnama (Exh.28) did not mention dead grubs, suggesting contamination occurred later.
Respondent/State supported the impugned judgments and opposed the revision.
Ratio Decidendi
Offences under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act are technical, and strict compliance with mandatory rules (Rules 14, 16, 22) by the Food Inspector is essential. Non-compliance vitiates the conviction.
Judgment Excerpts
The present revision is against the judgment of conviction dated 05.08.2003 for the offence punishable 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 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Malkapur in Regular Criminal Case No. 149 of 1996.
Shri Mardikar, learned Senior Counsel has pointed out the judgment of this Court in Criminal Revision Application No. 25 of 2015 (Santosh Dattatreya Mamidwar .v. The State of Maharashtra) dated 22.01.2019. He has also pointed the judgment of this Court in the case of Madhav Nagnath Wattamwar .v. The State of Maharashtra (reported in 2015 All MR (Cri) 4620) and submitted that the mandatory provisions of Rules 14, 16 and 22 are not followed by the Food Inspector.
Offences punishable under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act are technical.
Procedural History
The Food Inspector filed a complaint leading to Regular Criminal Case No. 149 of 1996 before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Malkapur. The trial court convicted the accused on 05.08.2003. The accused filed Criminal Appeal No. 33 of 2012 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Malkapur, which was dismissed on 09.07.2012. The accused then filed the present Criminal Revision Application No. 124 of 2012 before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, which was allowed on 27.02.2019.
Acts & Sections
- Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954: Sections 7(i), 2(ia)(a), 16(1)(a)(ii), 17, 2(ia)(f)
- Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955: Rules 14, 16, 22
