Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra, through the Food Inspector, filed an appeal against the acquittal of the respondent, Jayram Atmaram Shadija, proprietor of M/s Durga Laghu Udhyog, for offences under Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 read with Rule 50 of the PFA Rules. The respondent was accused of stocking for sale and selling adulterated linseed oil and conducting business without a licence. The Food Inspector visited the respondent's shop on 26 July 1995, collected a sample of linseed oil from a loose unlabelled tin, and sent it to the Public Analyst, who reported it as sub-standard. The trial court acquitted the respondent, and the State appealed. The High Court examined the evidence and found that the prosecution failed to examine the panch witness, which was a serious procedural lapse. Additionally, the prosecution did not prove that the respondent was carrying on business without a licence, as no evidence was led to show that a licence was required or that the respondent did not possess one. The court also noted that the sampling procedure was not strictly followed. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the acquittal.
Headnote
A) Prevention of Food Adulteration - Acquittal - Section 16, Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - Procedural Lapses - State appeal against acquittal dismissed as prosecution failed to examine panch witness and did not prove that respondent was carrying on business without licence - Held that non-examination of panch witness and lack of evidence on licence requirement vitiates the case (Paras 3-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the acquittal of the respondent for offences under Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 read with Rule 50 of the PFA Rules was justified on the basis of procedural irregularities and insufficient evidence.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the acquittal of the respondent.
Law Points
- Acquittal upheld due to non-examination of panch witness
- failure to prove absence of licence
- and non-compliance with sampling procedure
Case Details
2014 LawText (BOM) (08) 136
Criminal Appeal No. 70 of 2001
Mrs. Mehta, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the appellant; Mr. R.N. Khare, Advocate for the respondent
State of Maharashtra, through Shri C.D. Salunke, Food Inspector, Food & Drugs Administration, M.S. Wardha
Jayram s/o Atmaram Shadija, Proprietor of M/s Durga Laghu Udhyog, Sindhi Market, Wardha
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal against acquittal in a food adulteration case
Remedy Sought
The State sought reversal of the acquittal and conviction of the respondent under Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954
Filing Reason
The respondent was acquitted by the trial court despite the Public Analyst's report showing the linseed oil sample was sub-standard
Previous Decisions
The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Wardha, acquitted the respondent of the charges
Issues
Whether the non-examination of the panch witness vitiates the prosecution case?
Whether the prosecution proved that the respondent was carrying on business without a licence?
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant (State): The trial court erred in acquitting the respondent despite the Public Analyst's report and other evidence.
Respondent: The prosecution failed to examine the panch witness and did not prove the absence of a licence.
Ratio Decidendi
The prosecution's failure to examine the panch witness and to prove that the respondent was carrying on business without a licence are fatal to the case, and the acquittal is justified.
Judgment Excerpts
This is State appeal against acquittal of the respondent of the charge of stocking for sale and selling adulterated Linseed oil punishable under Section 16 of The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, read with Rule 50 of the Rules framed thereunder.
The prosecution failed to examine the panch witness and did not prove that the respondent was carrying on business without a licence.
Procedural History
The Food Inspector filed a complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Wardha, who after trial acquitted the respondent. The State appealed to the High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954: Section 16
- Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955: Rule 50
