Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sri. Syed Ahammed, was the accused in Criminal Case No.1022/2008 before the Civil Judge and JMFC, Sakaleshpura, for an offence under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The Food Inspector had collected a sample of coffee powder from the petitioner's premises, M/s. Select Coffee Works, on 18.12.2007. The sample was sent to the Public Analyst, who reported it as adulterated. The trial court convicted the petitioner and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and pay a fine of Rs.1,000. The petitioner appealed to the 5th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hassan, in Criminal Appeal No.138/2016, which confirmed the conviction. The petitioner then filed a criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, before the High Court of Karnataka. The main legal issue was whether the mandatory sampling procedure under Section 11 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and Rule 14 of the PFA Rules was followed. The petitioner argued that the Food Inspector did not divide the sample into three parts, seal them properly, or send one part to the Public Analyst within the prescribed time. The respondent, State of Karnataka, argued that the procedure was followed. The High Court examined the evidence and found that the Food Inspector (PW-1) admitted in cross-examination that he did not send the sample to the Public Analyst immediately and that the sample was not divided into three parts as required. The court held that non-compliance with the mandatory procedure vitiated the trial. The High Court allowed the revision petition, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the petitioner.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Revision - Section 397 read with 401 CrPC - Scope of Revision - The High Court in revision can examine the legality and propriety of the findings of the courts below, especially when there is a patent illegality or perversity in the appreciation of evidence. (Paras 1-2) B) Prevention of Food Adulteration - Sampling Procedure - Section 11 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and Rule 14 of PFA Rules - Mandatory Compliance - The Food Inspector must follow the procedure of dividing the sample into three parts, sealing them, and sending one part to the Public Analyst within a reasonable time. Failure to do so vitiates the trial. (Paras 5-8) C) Prevention of Food Adulteration - Conviction - Non-Compliance - The conviction of the accused for selling adulterated coffee powder was set aside because the Food Inspector did not comply with the mandatory sampling procedure under Section 11 of the Act and Rule 14 of the PFA Rules. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 9-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the petitioner under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 is sustainable when the mandatory sampling procedure under Section 11 of the Act and Rule 14 of the PFA Rules was not complied with.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the criminal revision petition, set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 20.06.2016 passed by the Civil Judge and JMFC, Sakaleshpura in C.C.No.1022/2008, and the judgment dated 14.03.2018 passed by the 5th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hassan in Criminal Appeal No.138/2016. The petitioner was acquitted of the charges.
Law Points
- Prevention of Food Adulteration Act
- 1954
- Section 11
- Rule 14 of PFA Rules
- mandatory sampling procedure
- non-compliance
- acquittal
