Case Note & Summary
The case arises from a criminal revision application filed by Kantilal Parasmal Jain, the original accused, challenging his conviction under Section 7 read with 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The accused was convicted by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Shindkheda on 6 November 2008 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs.3000, with default simple imprisonment for one month. His criminal appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule was dismissed on 8 October 2010. The prosecution case was that on 18 January 1997, Food Inspector R.I. Jethar visited the accused's grocery shop 'Anil Provisions' at Pashte, Taluka Shindkheda, District Dhule. The Food Inspector disclosed his identity and purchased 450 grams of groundnut oil from an open tin box containing 10 kg of oil stored for sale. The sample was divided into three parts, sealed, and labeled. The accused issued a cash memo in his handwriting and signature. Notice under Section 14-A of the Act was given, and the accused stated that bills of purchase were not available. One sample was sent to the Public Analyst, Pune, who reported that the groundnut oil was adulterated. The accused was prosecuted and convicted. In revision, the accused argued that he had purchased the oil from a wholesaler and had no knowledge of adulteration, seeking benefit of Section 19(2) of the Act. The court examined the evidence and found that the accused failed to produce any bills or prove that he sold the article in the same condition as purchased. The court held that the burden under Section 19(2) was on the accused, which he did not discharge. The court also noted that the accused did not exercise due diligence and did not examine the wholesaler. The revision was dismissed, confirming the conviction and sentence.
Headnote
A) Prevention of Food Adulteration Act - Section 7 read with 16 - Sale of Adulterated Food - Conviction - Accused sold groundnut oil which was found adulterated by Public Analyst - Trial court convicted and sentenced to 6 months RI and fine of Rs.3000 - Appellate court confirmed - Revision dismissed - Held that prosecution proved all ingredients beyond reasonable doubt (Paras 1-3). B) Prevention of Food Adulteration Act - Section 19(2) - Vendor's Defense - Burden of Proof - Accused claimed he purchased oil from a wholesaler but failed to produce bills or prove that he sold the article in the same condition as purchased - Held that accused did not discharge burden to show he had no knowledge of adulteration or exercised due diligence (Paras 4-6). C) Prevention of Food Adulteration Act - Section 14-A - Notice to Vendor - Compliance - Food Inspector gave notice under Section 14-A and accused stated bills were not available - Held that procedural requirements were complied with (Para 2).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the accused under Section 7 read with 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 is sustainable and whether the accused successfully proved the defense under Section 19(2) of the Act.
Final Decision
The Criminal Revision Application is dismissed. The conviction and sentence of the applicant under Section 7 read with 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 are confirmed.
Law Points
- Prevention of Food Adulteration Act
- 1954
- Section 7 read with 16
- Section 19(2)
- Section 14-A
- burden of proof on accused
- due diligence defense
- vendor's liability
