Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra, through Food Inspector Suresh Vithal Joshi, appealed against the judgment and order dated 3rd April 2001 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pune, in Regular Criminal Case No. 164 of 2000, which acquitted the respondents Narayan Bhausaheb Waman (vendor) and Dilip Bhausaheb Waman (proprietor of Himraj Ice Candy) of the offence punishable under Section 16 read with Sections 7(i), 2(1a)(a), and 2(1a)(m) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (PFA Act). The case arose from an incident on 15th June 1995 when the Food Inspector, accompanied by another Food Inspector and a panch witness, visited the respondents' shop at Gat No. 1490, Opposite ST Stand Shikrapur, Taluka Shirur, District Pune, and obtained a sample of ice-cream for analysis. The sample was sent to the Public Analyst, who reported that the ice-cream was adulterated. The trial court acquitted the respondents on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove that the sample was taken in accordance with the mandatory procedure under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, specifically Rule 22 which requires the addition of a preservative to the sample. The High Court, in appeal, examined the evidence and found that the Food Inspector admitted in cross-examination that he did not add any preservative to the ice-cream sample. The court held that Rule 22 of the PFA Rules is mandatory and non-compliance vitiates the prosecution. The court further noted that the Public Analyst's report could not be relied upon because the sample had deteriorated due to lack of preservative. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the acquittal, finding no merit in the State's appeal.
Headnote
A) Prevention of Food Adulteration - Sampling Procedure - Rule 22 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 - Mandatory Addition of Preservative - The Food Inspector failed to add preservative to the ice-cream sample as required under Rule 22, which is a mandatory procedural requirement. The court held that non-compliance with the sampling procedure renders the prosecution invalid and the accused cannot be convicted. The acquittal was upheld. (Paras 3-5) B) Prevention of Food Adulteration - Appeal Against Acquittal - Section 16 read with Sections 7(i), 2(1a)(a), 2(1a)(m) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - The State appealed against acquittal of respondents for selling adulterated ice-cream. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove compliance with mandatory sampling rules, and therefore the acquittal was justified. (Paras 1-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the failure to add preservative to the ice-cream sample as required under Rule 22 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 vitiates the prosecution under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the acquittal of the respondents. The court held that the failure to add preservative to the ice-cream sample as required under Rule 22 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 is a fatal defect that vitiates the prosecution. The appeal was dismissed.
Law Points
- Mandatory compliance with sampling procedure under PFA Rules
- Rule 22 requirement of adding preservative to ice-cream sample
- Non-compliance vitiates prosecution
- Acquittal upheld
