Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra appealed against the judgment and order dated 30th April 2001 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solapur in Regular Criminal Case No. 318 of 1999, whereby the respondents were acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (PFA Act). The respondents, Surendra Bhagirath Somani (vendor) and Bhagirath Hiralalji Somani (proprietor of M/s. Laxminarayan Traders), were found storing for sale Badishep (Fennel Seeds), a food article, in adulterated form. The Food Inspector purchased a sample and sent it to the Public Analyst, whose report confirmed adulteration. Consent was obtained from the competent authority and prosecution was launched. The trial court acquitted the respondents on the ground that the mandatory sampling procedure under Rule 14 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 was not complied with. The High Court, in appeal, examined the evidence and found that the Food Inspector admitted in cross-examination that he did not mix the entire stock of Badishep before taking the sample and did not divide the sample into three parts as required by Rule 14. The Public Analyst's report also noted that the sample was not representative. The court held that the mandatory procedure under Rule 14 is sacrosanct and any deviation renders the prosecution unsustainable. The appeal was dismissed and the acquittal was upheld.
Headnote
A) Prevention of Food Adulteration - Sampling Procedure - Rule 14 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 - Mandatory Compliance - The Food Inspector failed to properly mix the food article (Badishep/Fennel Seeds) before taking the sample and did not divide the sample into three parts as required under Rule 14. The Public Analyst's report indicated that the sample was not representative. Held that non-compliance with mandatory sampling procedure vitiates the prosecution and acquittal is justified (Paras 4-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the acquittal of the respondents for the offence under Section 16(1)(a)(ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 was justified on the ground of non-compliance with the mandatory sampling procedure under Rule 14 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the acquittal of the respondents, finding that the mandatory sampling procedure under Rule 14 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 was not complied with, rendering the prosecution unsustainable.
Law Points
- Prevention of Food Adulteration Act
- 1954
- Section 16(1)(a)(ii)
- Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules
- 1955
- Rule 14
- Sampling procedure
- Adulteration
- Acquittal
- Non-compliance
- Mandatory procedure
