Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra, through the Food Inspector, filed a Criminal Revision Application challenging the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Parbhani, dated 25th January 2000, which allowed the Criminal Revision No.116/1999 and set aside the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Parbhani, dated 1st July 1999, rejecting the application for discharge of the accused. The factual background involves a complaint filed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, against the respondents, who were vendors and proprietors of M/s. New Friends Jarda Stores, for selling adulterated 'Radha-Rani Chatni'. The sample was taken on 27th September 1996, and after analysis, the Public Analyst reported adulteration. The complaint was registered as R.C.C.No.258 of 1997. The accused opted to send the sample to the Central Food Laboratory (CFL), which also confirmed adulteration. However, the accused filed an application for discharge on the ground that the mandatory procedure under Rule 14 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 was not followed. The trial court rejected the application, but the Revisional Court allowed it, leading to the present revision by the State. The legal issue was whether the non-compliance with Rule 14, which requires the Food Inspector to divide the sample into three parts and follow specific sealing and labeling procedures, is fatal to the prosecution. The High Court, after examining the record, found that the Food Inspector had not complied with Rule 14 as the sample was not divided into three parts and the required formalities were not completed. The court held that the procedure under Rule 14 is mandatory and its non-compliance renders the prosecution invalid. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the revision application, upholding the order of discharge passed by the Revisional Court.
Headnote
A) Prevention of Food Adulteration - Sampling Procedure - Rule 14 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 - Mandatory Compliance - The court considered whether the failure to follow the mandatory sampling procedure under Rule 14 vitiates the prosecution - Held that the procedure under Rule 14 is mandatory and non-compliance renders the prosecution invalid - The Revisional Court correctly discharged the accused (Paras 5-7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order of discharge passed by the Revisional Court on the ground of non-compliance with mandatory sampling procedure under Rule 14 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 is correct and proper.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the Criminal Revision Application, upholding the order of discharge passed by the Revisional Court.
Law Points
- Prevention of Food Adulteration Act
- 1954
- Rule 14 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules
- 1955
- mandatory sampling procedure
- discharge
- non-compliance
- prosecution invalid
Case Details
2014 LawText (BOM) (06) 9
Criminal Revision Application No.138 of 2000
Mr. D.R. Korde, A.P.P. for the State of Maharashtra
Ashpak Ahmed Fakik Ahmed and Mohmmad Shafik Ahmed Mohd. Rafik Ahmed
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal Revision Application challenging the order of discharge passed by the Revisional Court in a food adulteration case.
Remedy Sought
The State sought to set aside the order of discharge and restore the complaint against the accused.
Filing Reason
The State challenged the order of the Revisional Court which discharged the accused on the ground of non-compliance with mandatory sampling procedure under Rule 14 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955.
Previous Decisions
The trial court (Chief Judicial Magistrate) rejected the discharge application on 1st July 1999. The Revisional Court (Additional Sessions Judge) allowed the revision and discharged the accused on 25th January 2000.
Issues
Whether the order of discharge passed by the Revisional Court on the ground of non-compliance with mandatory sampling procedure under Rule 14 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 is correct and proper.
Submissions/Arguments
The State argued that the Revisional Court erred in discharging the accused as the sampling procedure was substantially complied with.
The accused contended that the mandatory procedure under Rule 14 was not followed, rendering the prosecution invalid.
Ratio Decidendi
The procedure under Rule 14 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 is mandatory and non-compliance with it renders the prosecution invalid. The Food Inspector must strictly follow the sampling procedure, including dividing the sample into three parts and completing sealing and labeling formalities.
Judgment Excerpts
The procedure under Rule 14 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 is mandatory and non-compliance with it renders the prosecution invalid.
The Food Inspector has not complied with Rule 14 as the sample was not divided into three parts and the required formalities were not completed.
Procedural History
On 27th September 1996, the Food Inspector took a sample of 'Radha-Rani Chatni' from the accused. The Public Analyst reported adulteration. A complaint was filed and registered as R.C.C.No.258 of 1997. The accused applied for discharge on 4th February 1999, which was rejected by the trial court on 1st July 1999. The accused filed Criminal Revision No.116/1999, which was allowed by the Additional Sessions Judge on 25th January 2000, discharging the accused. The State filed the present Criminal Revision Application No.138 of 2000, which was dismissed by the High Court on 13th June 2014.
Acts & Sections
- Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954: Section 7(i), Section 2(ia)(a), Section 16(1)(a)(ii), Section 7(v), Section 7(iii)
- Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955: Rule 14, Rule 29, Rule 50(1)
