Case Note & Summary
The case pertains to an appeal filed by the State of Maharashtra against the acquittal of the respondent, Bhimashankar Chaturbhuj Mehta, who was the proprietor of M/s. Eshwar Dairy. The respondent was charged under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 for selling adulterated buffalo milk. On 17 July 1986, the Food Inspector visited the respondent's shop in Dharavi, purchased 660 ml of buffalo milk from an aluminium can, paid the cost, divided the milk into three equal parts, sealed them in glass bottles, and sent one sample to the Public Analyst. The Public Analyst's report was adverse, indicating that the milk was adulterated. The Food Inspector obtained sanction from the Commissioner and filed a complaint. The trial court, the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 46th Court, Mazgaon, Bombay, acquitted the accused by judgment dated 1 September 1993 in C.C. No. 308/S of 1989. The State appealed against this acquittal. The High Court examined the record and found that the Food Inspector had not added a preservative to the milk sample before sending it to the Public Analyst, which is mandatory under Rule 18 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. The court held that this non-compliance was fatal to the prosecution and that the trial court's finding was correct. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the acquittal.
Headnote
A) Prevention of Food Adulteration - Sampling Procedure - Rule 18 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 - Non-compliance - The Food Inspector failed to add a preservative to the milk sample before sending it to the Public Analyst, which is mandatory under Rule 18. The court held that such non-compliance is fatal to the prosecution and the accused is entitled to acquittal. (Para 3) B) Prevention of Food Adulteration - Acquittal - Appeal against acquittal - The State appealed against the acquittal of the accused by the trial court. The High Court found no merit in the appeal as the trial court's finding of non-compliance with Rule 18 was correct. The appeal was dismissed. (Para 3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the failure to add a preservative to the milk sample before sending it to the Public Analyst vitiates the prosecution under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the acquittal of the respondent.
Law Points
- Non-compliance with Rule 18 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules
- 1955
- Failure to add preservative to milk sample
- Acquittal upheld
- Burden of proof on prosecution
