Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra appealed against the judgment and order of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 46th Court, Mazgaon, Bombay, dated 29/04/1994 in C.C. No. 390/S/1990, whereby the respondent-accused was acquitted of offences punishable under section 7(i) read with section 2(ia)(m) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (PFAA) read with sections 16 and 17 of the PFAA. The complainant, Fakir Ismail Shaikh, a Food Inspector, visited the accused's premises on 20/10/1986, where the accused was engaged in manufacturing hard boiled sugar confectionery. The complainant purchased 900 gms of sugar coated confectionery in the presence of an independent witness and sent it to the Public Analyst. The Public Analyst's report indicated adulteration. However, the trial court acquitted the accused on the ground that the mandatory sampling procedure under Rule 14 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 was not complied with. The High Court, after hearing the appellant's counsel, found that the Food Inspector failed to follow the mandatory procedure, as the sample was not sent to the Public Analyst within the prescribed time and the seal was not properly affixed. The court held that such non-compliance vitiates the prosecution and the acquittal was justified. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the acquittal was upheld.
Headnote
A) Prevention of Food Adulteration - Sampling Procedure - Mandatory Compliance - Section 7(i) read with Section 2(ia)(m) and Sections 16, 17 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - The Food Inspector failed to follow the mandatory sampling procedure under Rule 14 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, as the sample was not sent to the Public Analyst within the prescribed time and the seal was not properly affixed. The court held that such non-compliance vitiates the prosecution and the acquittal was justified. (Paras 1-2)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the acquittal of the accused for offences under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was justified due to non-compliance with mandatory sampling procedures.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the acquittal of the respondent-accused.
Law Points
- Prevention of Food Adulteration Act
- 1954
- Section 7(i) read with Section 2(ia)(m) and Sections 16
- 17
- Rule 14 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules
- 1955
- Sampling procedure
- Mandatory compliance
- Acquittal upheld
