Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra filed an appeal under Section 378(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 against the judgment dated 27-11-2002 in Regular Criminal Case No.49/2000 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, acquitting the respondent Pankaj Arun Kalbande for offences under Section 16(1)(a)(ii), Section 7(i) read with Section 2(ia) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The prosecution alleged that on 4-11-1999, the Food Inspector visited the respondent's shop and purchased 450 grams of groundnut oil, which was divided into three parts and sent for analysis. After receiving the analyst's report, consent was granted and a complaint was filed. The trial court acquitted the respondent on the ground that there was contravention of Rule 14 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 and non-compliance of Section 13(2) of the Act, granting him benefit of doubt. The appellant argued that all necessary compliances were made, including stirring of the oil and intimation under Section 13(2) as per Exhibits 42 and 57. The respondent's counsel supported the acquittal. The High Court, after hearing both sides, found that the trial court's findings were not perverse and that the prosecution failed to prove compliance with mandatory provisions. The court noted that the evidence regarding stirring was insufficient and that the intimation under Section 13(2) was not given within a reasonable time. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the acquittal was upheld.
Headnote
A) Prevention of Food Adulteration - Rule 14 of PFA Rules, 1955 - Stirring of Sample - The prosecution must prove that the oil was properly stirred before taking the sample to ensure homogeneity. In the absence of clear evidence of stirring, the sample may not be representative, and the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt. (Paras 1-3) B) Prevention of Food Adulteration - Section 13(2) of PFA Act, 1954 - Intimation of Right to Get Sample Analyzed - The prosecution must prove that the accused was informed of his right to have the sample analyzed by the Central Food Laboratory. Failure to give such intimation within a reasonable time vitiates the prosecution. (Paras 2-3) C) Criminal Appeal - Section 378(4) CrPC - Appeal Against Acquittal - The appellate court will not interfere with an acquittal unless the findings are perverse or unreasonable. The benefit of doubt granted by the trial court based on non-compliance of mandatory provisions is justified. (Paras 1-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the acquittal of the respondent for offences under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 was justified on the grounds of non-compliance with Rule 14 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 and Section 13(2) of the Act.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The judgment of acquittal passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class in Regular Criminal Case No.49/2000 is upheld.
Law Points
- Prevention of Food Adulteration Act
- 1954
- Section 13(2)
- Section 16(1)(a)(ii)
- Section 7(i)
- Section 2(ia)
- Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules
- 1955
- Rule 14
- Rule 17
- Rule 18
- Criminal Procedure Code
- 1973
- Section 378(4)
- benefit of doubt
- compliance with mandatory provisions
- intimation of right to get sample analyzed
- stirring of sample before collection
