Case Note & Summary
The case pertains to a criminal revision application filed by Shantilal Bansilal Bhandari, the proprietor of a kirana store in Nanded, challenging his conviction under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The Food Inspector, P.D. Patki, visited the applicant's shop on 18 March 1998 and purchased 750 grams of 'Besan' (gram flour) for analysis. The sample was sent to the Public Analyst, who reported that the Besan was adulterated. Consequently, the applicant was prosecuted and convicted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nanded, in R.C.C. No. 566/1998 for offences under Sections 7(i) read with 2(ia)(a), 2(ia)(m), and 7(v) read with Rule 50, punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(ii) and 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act. He was sentenced to one year simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000. The conviction was upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nanded, in Criminal Appeal No. 19/2000. Aggrieved, the applicant filed the present revision. The main legal issues were: (1) whether the prosecution complied with Section 13(2) of the Act, which gives the accused the right to have the sample analyzed by the Director of Central Food Laboratory; and (2) whether the consent order under Section 20 of the Act was properly proved. The applicant argued that he had made an application (Exh. 28) requesting the court to send the sample to the Central Food Laboratory, but the trial court did not comply. He also contended that the consent order (Exh. 39) was not exhibited or proved during trial. The State argued that the courts below had correctly assessed the evidence. The High Court examined the record and found that the applicant's application under Section 13(2) was indeed made but not complied with. The court noted that the Public Analyst report (Exh. 31) was the basis of conviction, but the applicant's right to have the sample tested by the Central Food Laboratory was denied. Additionally, the consent order (Exh. 39) was not produced in evidence, which is a mandatory requirement under Section 20. The High Court held that both these defects were fatal to the prosecution case. Accordingly, the court allowed the revision application, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the applicant.
Headnote
A) Prevention of Food Adulteration - Section 13(2) - Right of Accused to Get Sample Analyzed by Central Food Laboratory - The accused has a statutory right under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 to request the court to send a sample to the Director of Central Food Laboratory for analysis. Failure to comply with such request vitiates the conviction. In this case, the applicant made an application (Exh. 28) requesting the court to send the sample to the Central Food Laboratory, but the trial court did not comply. The appellate court also failed to address this issue. Held that the non-compliance with Section 13(2) is fatal to the prosecution case (Paras 8-10). B) Prevention of Food Adulteration - Section 20 - Consent for Prosecution - The prosecution must produce valid consent under Section 20 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. In this case, the consent order (Exh. 39) was not exhibited or proved during trial. The courts below erred in relying on it without proper proof. Held that the absence of valid consent renders the prosecution invalid (Paras 11-12). C) Prevention of Food Adulteration - Sampling Procedure - Rule 50 - The prosecution must strictly comply with the sampling procedure under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. Any deviation can lead to acquittal. However, in this case, the main ground for acquittal was non-compliance with Section 13(2) and Section 20 (Paras 8-12).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the applicant under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 is sustainable when the prosecution failed to comply with Section 13(2) by not sending the sample to the Director of Central Food Laboratory despite the applicant's request, and when the consent order under Section 20 of the Act was not produced in evidence.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the criminal revision application, set aside the judgment and order of conviction dated 01/03/2000 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nanded in R.C.C. No. 566/1998 and the judgment dated 06/08/2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nanded in Criminal Appeal No. 19/2000. The applicant was acquitted of all charges.
Law Points
- Non-compliance with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act
- 1954
- Failure to send sample to Central Food Laboratory
- Non-production of valid consent under Section 20 of the Act
- Burden of proof on prosecution
- Right of accused to have sample analyzed by Central Food Laboratory
