Case Note & Summary
The appellant Vijendra was convicted under Section 7(1)/16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 for selling adulterated buffalo milk. On 16.10.1979, Food Inspector R.C. Kansal found the appellant selling milk without a license near Acchapalgarhi Road, Pilakhuwa. The inspector purchased 660 ml of milk for Rs. 1.65 in the presence of an independent witness Radhey Shyam. The sample was divided into three bottles, sealed, and sent to the Public Analyst. The analyst report dated 15.11.1979 found the milk deficient by 12% in milk fat and 27% in non-fatty solids, declaring it adulterated. Consent for prosecution was granted on 06.02.1980, and a complaint was filed on 18.03.1980. The analyst report was sent to the appellant by registered post on 07.04.1980, 19 days after institution of prosecution. The trial court convicted the appellant to 6 months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000. The appellate court and the High Court affirmed the conviction. The Supreme Court examined two main issues: compliance with Section 13(2) of the Act (forwarding of analyst report) and Section 10(7) (independent witness). The appellant argued that the report was sent beyond the 10-day period prescribed under Rule 9B and without proof of delivery, causing prejudice. The respondent contended that the word 'forward' does not require service, and the appellant did not apply for retesting. The Supreme Court held that the requirement under Section 13(2) is to forward the report, not to prove its receipt. The delay of 19 days was not fatal as the appellant had the opportunity to apply for retesting but did not. Regarding Section 10(7), the court noted that the Food Inspector made genuine efforts to secure an independent witness, and the witness turned hostile. The court relied on the principle that conviction can be based on the Food Inspector's testimony alone. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the conviction.
Headnote
A) Prevention of Food Adulteration - Section 13(2) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - Forwarding of Analyst Report - The provision requires the authority to forward a copy of the analyst report to the person from whom sample was taken after institution of prosecution. The word 'forward' does not mean 'serve' or 'deliver'. Sending by registered post within a reasonable time constitutes substantial compliance, especially when the accused did not apply for retesting. (Paras 13-15) B) Prevention of Food Adulteration - Rule 9B of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 - Time Limit of 10 Days - The rule requiring forwarding of report within 10 days after institution of prosecution is directory, not mandatory. Delay of 19 days does not render prosecution illegal if no prejudice is caused to the accused. (Paras 13-15) C) Prevention of Food Adulteration - Section 10(7) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - Independent Witness - The Food Inspector must make genuine efforts to call one or more persons to witness the taking of sample. If none is willing, the absence of an independent witness does not vitiate the proceedings. Conviction can be based on the sole testimony of the Food Inspector. (Paras 8-10) D) Evidence Law - Hostile Witness - The independent witness turned hostile does not automatically discredit the prosecution case. The court can rely on other evidence including the Food Inspector's testimony. (Paras 8-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether non-compliance of Section 13(2) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and Rule 9B of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 by sending the analyst report beyond 10 days and without proof of delivery vitiates the conviction?
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction and sentence of 6 months rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000 under Section 7(1)/16(1)(a)(i) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.
Law Points
- Substantial compliance of Section 13(2) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act
- 1954 is sufficient if no prejudice caused to accused
- Section 10(7) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act
- 1954 requires genuine efforts to secure independent witness
- not actual presence
- Rule 9B of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules
- 1955 is directory not mandatory
