Case Note & Summary
The case pertains to a criminal revision application filed by Sampatlal Dhulchand Jain and another (original accused) against the judgment and order of conviction dated 16.10.2002 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (Muni) Court, Surat in PFA Case No.43 of 2001. The applicants were convicted for offences punishable under Sections 2(IX)(k), 7(2) and 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (the Act) and sentenced to three months simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500 each, with default stipulation. The conviction was upheld by the learned 6th Additional District & Sessions Judge, Surat in Criminal Appeal No.47 of 2002 vide order dated 27.11.2008. Aggrieved, the applicants filed the present revision under Sections 397 read with 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The applicants' counsel argued that the muddamal consisted of Masala Soda bottles, but saccharine, which was alleged to be an adulterant, was not mentioned anywhere in the ingredients. It was contended that there was only a breach of Sections 42 and 47 of the Act, and the alleged muddamal was not adulterated. The counsel submitted that no offence under Sections 7 and 16 of the Act was made out, and the prosecution failed to prove misbranding under Section 7(2). The High Court examined the record and found that the prosecution had not established that the Masala Soda contained saccharine or was adulterated. The court noted that the learned JMFC had concluded that the breach was not of adulteration but of misbranding, yet convicted the applicants under Sections 2(IX)(k), 7(2) and 16. The High Court held that the conviction was based on no evidence and was unsustainable. Consequently, the revision application was allowed, the impugned judgments were quashed and set aside, and the applicants were acquitted of all charges.
Headnote
A) Prevention of Food Adulteration - Adulteration - Sections 2(IX)(k), 7(2), 16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - Conviction set aside - The prosecution failed to prove that the Masala Soda bottles contained saccharine, which was alleged to be an adulterant. The muddamal did not mention saccharine as an ingredient. The court held that mere breach of Sections 42 and 47 of the Act does not constitute an offence under Section 7 and 16. The conviction was based on no evidence and was quashed. (Paras 1-5) B) Criminal Procedure - Revision - Sections 397, 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - High Court's revisional jurisdiction - The court examined the legality and propriety of the conviction and found that the lower courts had erred in convicting the accused without proof of adulteration. The revision was allowed. (Paras 1-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the applicants under Sections 2(IX)(k), 7(2) and 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 was sustainable when the prosecution failed to prove that the Masala Soda bottles contained saccharine or were adulterated.
Final Decision
The revision application is allowed. The judgment and order of conviction dated 16.10.2002 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (Muni) Court, Surat in PFA Case No.43 of 2001 and the order dated 27.11.2008 passed by the learned 6th Additional District & Sessions Judge, Surat in Criminal Appeal No.47 of 2002 are quashed and set aside. The applicants are acquitted of all charges.
Law Points
- Burden of proof in food adulteration cases
- Distinction between adulteration and misbranding
- Necessity of proving essential ingredients of offence
- Scope of revisional jurisdiction under CrPC
