Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra, through Food Inspector Rajendra Shankar Bhatkar, filed an appeal against the acquittal of Vilas Ramchandra Aundhkar, the proprietor of a shop, in a case under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The prosecution alleged that the Food Inspector visited the accused's shop, purchased 450 grams of ground-nut oil, and the sample was found to be adulterated. After obtaining sanction from the Commissioner, a complaint was filed in the court of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. The trial court, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Satara, acquitted the accused by judgment dated 20/10/1993 in Summary Criminal Case No. 2318 of 1990. The sole ground for acquittal was that there was no evidence on record to indicate whether the Public Analyst himself had analysed the sample sent for examination. The State appealed to the High Court. The High Court heard the learned APP for the State, but no one appeared for the respondent despite service. The High Court examined the trial court's finding and held that the trial court was correct in acquitting the accused. The High Court noted that the prosecution had failed to adduce any evidence to show that the Public Analyst personally analysed the sample. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed and the acquittal was upheld.
Headnote
A) Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - Section 7(i) read with Section 16 - Burden of Proof - Public Analyst's Analysis - The prosecution must prove that the Public Analyst personally analysed the sample sent for examination. Failure to adduce such evidence results in acquittal. In this case, the trial court acquitted the accused because there was no evidence on record to indicate whether the Public Analyst himself had analysed the sample. The High Court upheld the acquittal, finding no error in the trial court's reasoning. (Paras 1-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the acquittal of the accused by the trial court on the ground that there was no evidence that the Public Analyst himself analysed the sample was correct.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Satara in Summary Criminal Case No. 2318 of 1990 is confirmed.
Law Points
- Burden of proof on prosecution to establish that Public Analyst personally analysed the sample
- Failure to prove analysis by Public Analyst leads to acquittal
- Section 7(i) read with Section 16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act
- 1954
