Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra appealed against the acquittal of the respondents-accused by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in Criminal Case No. 79/S/91 for offences under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and Rules, 1955. The respondents were partners and a firm carrying on business of selling food articles. On 20 March 1991, the Food Inspector visited their shop and took a sample of turmeric powder from a gunny bag. The accused No. 1 and 2 were present. The sample was sent to the Public Analyst, who reported that the sample was not in a fit condition for analysis. The trial court acquitted the accused, holding that the prosecution failed to prove that the Food Inspector complied with Rule 22 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, which requires proper mixing of the food article and division into three parts. The High Court, in appeal, examined the evidence and found that the Food Inspector did not mix the turmeric powder before taking the sample, and the sample was taken from the top of the gunny bag without stirring. The Public Analyst's report also indicated that the sample was not in a fit condition for analysis. The court held that the mandatory provisions of Rule 22 were not complied with, and therefore the acquittal was justified. The appeal was dismissed, and the acquittal was upheld.
Headnote
A) Prevention of Food Adulteration - Sampling Procedure - Rule 22 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 - Mandatory Compliance - The prosecution failed to prove that the Food Inspector properly mixed the food article (turmeric powder) before taking samples and divided it into three parts as required under Rule 22. The evidence showed that the sample was taken from a gunny bag without proper mixing, and the Public Analyst's report indicated that the sample was not in a fit condition for analysis. Held that non-compliance with the mandatory sampling procedure vitiates the prosecution and the acquittal was proper (Paras 4-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the acquittal of the accused for alleged violation of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and Rules, 1955 was justified on the ground of non-compliance with the mandatory sampling procedure under Rule 22 of the Rules.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the acquittal of the respondents-accused. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove that the Food Inspector complied with Rule 22 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, as the sample was taken without proper mixing and the Public Analyst's report indicated the sample was not in a fit condition for analysis.
Law Points
- Prevention of Food Adulteration Act
- 1954
- Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules
- 1955
- Rule 22
- Sampling procedure
- Proper mixing
- Division of sample
- Acquittal
- Non-compliance
Case Details
2005 LawText (BOM) (02) 194
Criminal Appeal No. 112 of 1994
Mr. D.P. Adsule, APP for the State. None for the respondent.
Shri Sudhakar K. Salunke, Shri Kashinath M. Salunke, Shri Mangesh K. Salunke, Shri Janardhan K. Salunke, M/s. K.M. Salunke and Sons
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 reversal of the acquittal of the respondents-accused for offences under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and Rules, 1955.
Filing Reason
The trial court acquitted the accused on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove compliance with the mandatory sampling procedure under Rule 22 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955.
Previous Decisions
The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate acquitted the accused in Criminal Case No. 79/S/91 on 26/10/1993.
Issues
Whether the Food Inspector complied with Rule 22 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 regarding proper mixing and division of the sample.
Whether the acquittal of the accused was justified on the ground of non-compliance with the mandatory sampling procedure.
Submissions/Arguments
The appellant (State) argued that the trial court erred in acquitting the accused and that the evidence showed compliance with the sampling procedure.
The respondents (accused) did not appear or argue in the appeal.
Ratio Decidendi
The mandatory provisions of Rule 22 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 require the Food Inspector to properly mix the food article and divide it into three parts. Non-compliance with this procedure vitiates the prosecution, and the accused are entitled to acquittal.
Judgment Excerpts
The appellant is original complainant who had filed complaint against respondents - accused under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and Rules, 1955 framed thereunder.
The trial court acquitted the accused on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove that the Food Inspector had complied with the mandatory provisions of Rule 22 of the said Rules.
The evidence on record clearly shows that the Food Inspector did not mix the turmeric powder before taking the sample and the sample was taken from the top of the gunny bag without stirring.
The Public Analyst's report also indicated that the sample was not in a fit condition for analysis.
In my view, the trial court was justified in acquitting the accused on the ground of non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of Rule 22 of the said Rules.
Procedural History
The original complaint was filed by the Food Inspector against the respondents-accused under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and Rules, 1955. The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, in Criminal Case No. 79/S/91, acquitted the accused on 26/10/1993. The State of Maharashtra appealed against the acquittal in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, which dismissed the appeal on 22/02/2005.
Acts & Sections
- Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954:
- Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955: Rule 22
