Case Note & Summary
The State of Gujarat filed a criminal revision application under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging the judgment and order dated 27.11.2012 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Jamnagar, in Criminal Appeal No.22 of 2012. By that judgment, the appellate court allowed the appeal of the original accused No.1 and 2 (Jethalal Pritamdas Khetani and another) and set aside their conviction and sentence under Section 7 punishable under Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (PFA Act). The trial court had convicted the accused on 31.03.2012 in Criminal Case No.3522 of 2004, sentencing them to six months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,000/-. The prosecution case was that the Food Inspector visited the shop of accused No.2, purchased a sample of Narmada Pasteurized Standard Milk, and sent it to the Public Analyst, who reported that the milk fat and solids-not-fat were below prescribed standards. The trial court convicted accused No.1 (distributor) and No.2 (owner of Santosh Milk House), while acquitting accused No.3 and No.4. On appeal, the Sessions Judge acquitted the accused on the ground that the mandatory sampling procedure under Rule 14 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 was not complied with, as the Food Inspector did not depose about adding preservative to the sample, and the panch witness was not examined. The High Court, in revision, held that the revisional court's scope is limited and interference is warranted only if the judgment is perverse or illegal. The appellate court's finding of non-compliance with Rule 14 was a plausible view based on evidence, and the High Court could not reappreciate evidence to substitute its own view. The revision was dismissed, upholding the acquittal.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Revision against Acquittal - Scope of Interference - High Court's revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 read with Section 401 of CrPC is limited; interference warranted only if the judgment is perverse, illegal, or based on no evidence - The appellate court's finding of non-compliance with mandatory sampling procedure under Rule 14 of PFA Rules was a plausible view, not perverse - Held that revision against acquittal cannot be converted into an appeal and the High Court cannot reappreciate evidence unless the lower court's view is wholly unreasonable (Paras 5-7). B) Prevention of Food Adulteration - Sampling Procedure - Rule 14 of PFA Rules, 1955 - Mandatory requirement to add preservative to sample at the time of taking - Failure to prove compliance with Rule 14 renders the prosecution case doubtful - The appellate court rightly acquitted the accused as the Food Inspector did not depose about adding preservative, and the panch witness was not examined - Held that non-compliance with mandatory procedure vitiates the conviction (Paras 4-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the judgment of acquittal passed by the appellate court was perverse and required interference in revision, particularly in light of non-compliance with mandatory sampling procedure under Rule 14 of the PFA Rules.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the revision application, upholding the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Jamnagar, dated 27.11.2012.
Law Points
- Prevention of Food Adulteration Act
- 1954
- Section 7
- Section 16
- Rule 14 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules
- 1955
- mandatory sampling procedure
- acquittal upheld
