Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra filed an appeal against the judgment and order dated 6/3/1992 passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 46th Court, Mazgaon, Bombay in Case No.382/S/1989, whereby the trial court acquitted the accused of the offence punishable under section 7(1) read with section 2(ia)(m) of section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The prosecution case was that on 22/10/1987, Food Inspector Shri N.A. Janugade visited the shop of the accused and seized a sample of toffee being sold. The sample was sent to the Public Analyst on 22/12/1987, i.e., after a delay of 61 days. The report from the Public Analyst was received on 28/12/1988. The trial court acquitted the accused on the ground that the delay in sending the sample was not explained. The High Court, in appeal, considered whether the delay vitiated the prosecution. The court noted that the sample was taken on 22/10/1987 but sent to the Public Analyst on 22/12/1987, a delay of 61 days, and no explanation was offered for this delay. Relying on the principle that such delay without explanation entitles the accused to the benefit of doubt, the High Court held that the trial court's order of acquittal was justified and did not call for interference. The appeal was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Prevention of Food Adulteration - Delay in sending sample - Rule 7(3) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 - Sample of toffee taken on 22/10/1987 sent to Public Analyst on 22/12/1987, a delay of 61 days - No explanation for delay - Held that such delay without explanation entitles the accused to benefit of doubt and acquittal is justified (Paras 1-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the delay of 61 days in sending the sample to the Public Analyst, without any explanation, vitiates the prosecution and entitles the accused to acquittal.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the acquittal of the accused.
Law Points
- Delay in sending sample to Public Analyst
- Rule 7(3) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules
- 1955
- Benefit of doubt
- Acquittal upheld
