Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra appealed against the judgment and order dated 25.4.2001 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pune, in R.C.C. No.100 of 1997, acquitting the respondents for offences under Section 7(i) read with Sections 2(ia)(a), 2(ia)(f), 2(ia)(m) punishable under Sections 16(1)(a)(ii) and 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The case arose from an incident on 29.10.1996 when Food Inspector Ugale visited the shop of M/s Gurukrupa Trading Company and purchased a sample of 600 grams of ginger (whole) from two cardboard boxes. The sample was divided into three parts, sealed, and one part was sent to the Public Analyst the next day. The Public Analyst's report indicated that the sample did not conform to the standards of whole ginger. Consequently, a case was filed against respondent No.1 (vendor), respondent No.2 (proprietor of Gurukrupa Trading Co.), and respondent No.3 (proprietor of M/s Jay Spices, the supplier). The trial court acquitted all respondents. The State appealed, challenging the acquittal. The High Court, after hearing the APP and perusing the record, found that the prosecution had not complied with the mandatory sampling procedure. Specifically, there was a delay in sending the sample to the Public Analyst, and the Public Analyst was not examined as a witness. The court noted that the sample was taken on 29.10.1996 but sent to the Public Analyst only on 30.10.1996, and the report was received later. However, the prosecution did not explain the delay or produce the Public Analyst to prove the report. The court held that the trial court's finding of non-compliance with the procedure was correct and that the acquittal was justified. The appeal was dismissed, and the acquittal was upheld.
Headnote
A) Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - Sampling Procedure - Delay in Sending Sample - The prosecution failed to send the sample to the Public Analyst within a reasonable time, and the Public Analyst was not examined as a witness, which rendered the report inadmissible and the prosecution case doubtful. Held that the acquittal was justified (Paras 4-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the acquittal of the respondents for offences under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, was justified on the grounds of non-compliance with sampling procedure and lack of proper evidence.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pune, on 25.4.2001 in R.C.C. No.100 of 1997 is upheld.
Law Points
- Non-compliance with sampling procedure
- delay in sending sample to Public Analyst
- non-production of Public Analyst as witness
- benefit of doubt to accused
Case Details
2017 LawText (BOM) (05) 27
Criminal Appeal No. 292 of 2002
Dr. Shalini Phansalkar-Joshi, J.
Mr. Amit Palkar, APP for the State; None for the Respondents
Shri. Vasant Rameshwar Mitkari, Sou. Leela Vasant Mitkari, Jayraj Kesarimal Doshi
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal against acquittal in a food adulteration case
Remedy Sought
The State sought conviction of the respondents for offences under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.
Filing Reason
The State challenged the acquittal of the respondents by the trial court.
Previous Decisions
The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pune, acquitted the respondents on 25.4.2001 in R.C.C. No.100 of 1997.
Issues
Whether the trial court was justified in acquitting the respondents on the ground of non-compliance with sampling procedure?
Whether the delay in sending the sample to the Public Analyst and non-examination of the Public Analyst vitiated the prosecution case?
Submissions/Arguments
The State argued that the trial court erred in acquitting the respondents despite the Public Analyst report showing adulteration.
The respondents (not represented) had argued before the trial court that the sampling procedure was not followed properly.
Ratio Decidendi
The prosecution must strictly comply with the sampling procedure under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. Delay in sending the sample to the Public Analyst and failure to examine the Public Analyst as a witness renders the prosecution case doubtful and justifies acquittal.
Judgment Excerpts
By this appeal, the State is challenging the judgment and order dated 25.4.2001, passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pune, in R.C.C. NO.100 of 1997, thereby acquitting respondents for the offences under Section 7(i) read with Sections 2(ia) (a), 2(ia)(f), 2(ia) (m) punishable under Sections 16(1)(a)(ii) and 16(1)(a)(i) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.
Learned trial Court, after hearing both sides and after recording of evidence, came to the conclusion that the prosecution has not complied with the mandatory sampling procedure and hence acquitted the respondents.
Procedural History
On 29.10.1996, Food Inspector Ugale took a sample of ginger from the respondents' shop. The sample was sent to the Public Analyst on 30.10.1996. The Public Analyst reported that the sample did not conform to standards. A case was filed against the respondents. The trial court acquitted them on 25.4.2001. The State appealed to the High Court on 2002-??-??. The High Court dismissed the appeal on 9.5.2017.
Acts & Sections
- Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954: Section 7(i), Section 2(ia)(a), Section 2(ia)(f), Section 2(ia)(m), Section 16(1)(a)(ii), Section 16(1)(a)(i)
