Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra appealed against the judgment of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dahiwadi, acquitting Bharat Anant Shinde of offences under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The case arose from a sample of ice candy taken by Food Inspector B.K. Karyappa on 2 February 1996 from the respondent's shop. The sample was melted and sent to the Public Health Laboratory, Pune, which reported it as adulterated. The respondent denied selling ice candy and claimed he only had soda lemon and carbonated water in his freezer. The trial court acquitted the respondent. On appeal, the High Court examined the sampling procedure and found that the prosecution had not complied with Rule 14 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, which requires that frozen food articles be kept in a frozen state during transport and storage until analysis. The court noted that the sample was melted before being sent to the laboratory, and there was no evidence that it was kept frozen thereafter. Consequently, the Public Analyst's report was not reliable. The court also observed that the respondent had raised a plausible defence that he did not sell ice candy. The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the acquittal on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt due to procedural lapses.
Headnote
A) Prevention of Food Adulteration - Sampling Procedure - Rule 14 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 - Ice Candy - The prosecution failed to prove that the sample of ice candy was kept in a frozen state as required by Rule 14, which mandates that frozen food articles be transported and stored in a frozen condition until analysis. The court held that non-compliance with this mandatory procedure renders the report of the Public Analyst inadmissible and the prosecution unsustainable. (Paras 6-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the acquittal of the respondent for offences under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 was proper given the alleged non-compliance with sampling procedures.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the acquittal of the respondent, finding that the prosecution failed to comply with Rule 14 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, which requires frozen food samples to be kept in a frozen state until analysis. The court held that the non-compliance rendered the Public Analyst's report unreliable and the prosecution unsustainable.
Law Points
- Sampling procedure for ice candy must comply with Rule 14 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules
- 1955
- which requires the sample to be kept in a frozen state until analysis
- non-compliance vitiates the prosecution.
