Case Note & Summary
The case pertains to a criminal revision petition filed by M. Ajithkumar, the proprietor of Swasthik Trading Company, challenging his conviction under Section 7(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The Food Inspector, Koppa, visited the shop of accused No.1, M. Umar, on 16.02.2008 and inspected 20 packs of sungift refined cooking oil, each containing 200 milligrams. The Food Inspector suspected adulteration and collected samples. The sample was sent to the Public Analyst, who reported that the oil was adulterated. Based on this report, a complaint was filed against the revision petitioner and others. The trial court convicted the revision petitioner, and the appellate court confirmed the conviction. The revision petitioner approached the High Court under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. The main legal issues were whether the mandatory sampling procedure under Rule 14 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 was followed and whether the accused was given an opportunity to have the sample re-analyzed by the Director of Central Food Laboratory under Section 13(2) of the Act. The revision petitioner argued that the Food Inspector did not divide the sample into three parts as required by Rule 14 and that the accused was not informed of his right to re-analysis. The respondent argued that the procedure was followed. The court analyzed the evidence and found that the Food Inspector had not complied with Rule 14, as the sample was not divided into three parts and one part was not sent to the Director of Central Food Laboratory. The court also noted that the accused was not given an opportunity to exercise his right under Section 13(2). The court held that non-compliance with mandatory procedure vitiates the prosecution and the conviction is unsustainable. The court allowed the revision petition, set aside the judgments of the trial court and appellate court, and acquitted the revision petitioner.
Headnote
A) Prevention of Food Adulteration - Sampling Procedure - Rule 14 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 - Mandatory Compliance - The Food Inspector failed to follow the mandatory sampling procedure under Rule 14 by not dividing the sample into three parts and not sending one part to the Director of Central Food Laboratory. The court held that non-compliance with the mandatory procedure vitiates the prosecution and the conviction cannot be sustained. (Paras 5-8) B) Prevention of Food Adulteration - Right to Re-analysis - Section 13(2) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - Opportunity to Accused - The accused was not given an opportunity to have the sample re-analyzed by the Director of Central Food Laboratory as mandated under Section 13(2). The court held that the failure to provide such opportunity is fatal to the prosecution and the conviction based solely on the Public Analyst's report is illegal. (Paras 9-12) C) Criminal Revision - Scope of Revision - Section 397 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Interference with Concurrent Findings - The court held that when there is a patent illegality in the procedure followed by the trial court and the appellate court, the revisional court can interfere to prevent miscarriage of justice. (Paras 13-15)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the revision petitioner under Section 7(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 is sustainable when the mandatory sampling procedure under Rule 14 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 was not complied with and the sample was not sent to the Director of Central Food Laboratory for analysis under Section 13(2) of the Act.
Final Decision
Revision petition allowed. Judgments of trial court and appellate court set aside. Revision petitioner acquitted of all offences.
Law Points
- Non-compliance with mandatory sampling procedure under Rule 14 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules
- 1955
- Failure to send sample to Director of Central Food Laboratory for analysis under Section 13(2) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act
- 1954
- Conviction based on report of Public Analyst without opportunity for re-analysis is illegal
