Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra, through Food Inspector M.M. Acharya, filed an appeal against the judgment and order dated 11/8/1992 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Igatpuri, Nashik, acquitting the respondent-accused, Rupchand Ghewarchand Rake, proprietor of Pachitrao Flour Mill, of the offence punishable under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The prosecution case was that the Food Inspector visited the respondent's shop and collected samples of Niger seed oil which was manufactured and kept for sale by the accused. After following the prescribed procedure and obtaining sanction to prosecute, a complaint was filed. The Trial Court, however, acquitted the accused. The High Court heard the learned APP for the State and the learned counsel for the respondent. The learned APP took the court through the judgment and evidence. The High Court examined the Trial Court's finding that the Food Inspector did not comply with Rule 22 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, which requires the sample to be mixed thoroughly and divided into three parts in the presence of the vendor. The High Court found that the Trial Court's conclusion was based on evidence and was not perverse. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the acquittal.
Headnote
A) Prevention of Food Adulteration - Sampling Procedure - Rule 22 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 - Mandatory Compliance - The Food Inspector must mix the sample thoroughly and divide it into three parts in the presence of the vendor. Failure to do so vitiates the prosecution. The court held that non-compliance with Rule 22 is fatal to the prosecution case. (Paras 1-4) B) Criminal Appeal - Acquittal - Interference by High Court - Scope - The High Court will not interfere with an acquittal unless the findings are perverse or based on no evidence. In this case, the Trial Court's finding of non-compliance with Rule 22 was based on evidence and not perverse. (Paras 1-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Trial Court was justified in acquitting 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 while taking the sample of Niger seed oil.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the acquittal of the accused.
Law Points
- Prevention of Food Adulteration Act
- 1954
- Rule 22 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules
- 1955
- Sampling procedure
- Mixing and dividing sample
- Acquittal upheld
