Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra appealed against the acquittal of the respondent-accused, Girishkumar A. Dedhia, by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 46th Court, Mazgaon, Bombay in C.C. No. 389/S/1989. The respondent was acquitted of the offence punishable under section 7(i) read with section 2(ia)(m) read with sections 16 and 17 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The prosecution case was that the Food Inspector, along with an independent witness, purchased 900 gms of sugar coated confectionery from the accused's premises and sent it to the Public Analyst, who reported the sample as adulterated. The prosecution examined three witnesses: P.W.1 Gajanan Patkar, a clerk from LHA; P.W.2 F.I. Shaikh, the Food Inspector; and P.W.3 Atmaram Mane, the panch witness. The trial court acquitted the accused on the ground that the Food Inspector did not comply with the mandatory provisions of Rule 22 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, which requires the sample to be properly mixed and divided into three parts. The High Court, after perusing the evidence and the judgment, found that the Food Inspector admitted in cross-examination that he did not mix the sample before dividing it into three parts. The court held that this non-compliance with Rule 22 was fatal to the prosecution and upheld the acquittal. The appeal was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Prevention of Food Adulteration - Sampling Procedure - Rule 22 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 - Non-compliance - The Food Inspector failed to properly mix and divide the sample into three parts as required under Rule 22. The court held that such non-compliance vitiates the prosecution and the accused is entitled to acquittal. (Para 4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the acquittal of the respondent-accused under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 was justified due to non-compliance with the prescribed sampling procedure.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 46th Court, Mazgaon, Bombay in C.C. No. 389/S/1989 is confirmed.
Law Points
- Non-compliance with sampling procedure under Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules
- 1955
- Rule 22
- Acquittal upheld
- Burden of proof on prosecution
