Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from the acquittal of the respondent, a proprietor and vendor of a provisions store, who was charged with selling adulterated groundnut oil in violation of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. On 04-11-1999, the Food Inspector visited the respondent's shop, purchased 450 grams of groundnut oil, divided it into three equal parts, filled three bottles, sealed them, and sent them for analysis. The public analyst's report indicated adulteration, and after obtaining consent from the Joint Commissioner, a complaint was filed under Section 7(i) of the Act. The Judicial Magistrate First Class acquitted the respondent on 27-11-2002, primarily on the grounds that there was contravention of Rule 14 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 because the oil had not been stirred before sampling, and there was non-compliance with Section 13(2) of the Act regarding notice of the analyst's report. The State appealed, contending that all mandatory compliances were made: the oil was stirred, the samples were properly taken in clean bottles, and the respondent was given due notice under Section 13(2). The State relied on State of Maharashtra v. Popat Panachand Shah. The respondent countered that the Food Inspector admitted in cross-examination that he did not stir the oil, that the panchanama did not mention stirring, that the bottles were not shown to be cleaned and dried, and that the sealing and consent procedures were irregular. The respondent cited State of Maharashtra v. Gitaram Kaluram, Nagpur Municipal Corporation v. Ramprasad Manchand Sharma, and State of Maharashtra v. Ramesh Shriniwas Rao. The High Court, after examining the record, found that the Food Inspector's own deposition showed he had not stirred the oil, and there was no evidence that the bottles were cleaned and dried. Precedents established that failure to stir the stock renders the sample non-representative and failure to prove cleanliness of bottles is fatal. Though the court found compliance with Section 13(2) based on Exhibits 42 and 57, these fatal infirmities under Rule 14 were sufficient to uphold the acquittal. The court held that the trial court's view was not perverse and accordingly dismissed the appeal.
Headnote
A) Prevention of Food Adulteration - Sampling Procedure - Mandatory Stirring of Stock - Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, Rule 14 - The Food Inspector admitted in cross-examination that he had not stirred the groundnut oil before taking samples, rendering the sample non-representative. The court, relying on precedent, held this failure fatal to the prosecution and justified the acquittal. Held, the sample not being of representative character vitiates the case (Paras 6-8). B) Prevention of Food Adulteration - Sampling Procedure - Requirement of Clean and Dried Sample Containers - Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, Rule 14 - The prosecution failed to adduce evidence that the bottles used for sampling were cleaned and dried before sample collection. Following the Division Bench ruling in State of Maharashtra vs. Gitaram Kaluram, the court held this omission to be a fatal infirmity. Held, acquittal based on such non-compliance is proper (Paras 6-8). C) Prevention of Food Adulteration - Procedural Compliance - Notice under Section 13(2) - Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, Section 13(2) - On perusal of documents Exhibits 42 and 57, the court found that the mandatory intimation of the analyst's report had been given to the respondent, thereby complying with the statutory requirement. Held, no contravention of Section 13(2) occurred (Para 9).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in acquitting the respondent for offence under Section 16(1)(a)(ii), Section 7(i) read with Section 2(ia) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 due to non-compliance of Rule 14 and Rule 16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the acquittal. It held that the non-stirring of oil before sampling and failure to prove bottles were cleaned and dried were fatal to the prosecution. Consequently, the respondent was entitled to benefit of doubt.
Law Points
- compliance with Rule 14 and Rule 16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules
- 1955 is mandatory
- failure to stir oil before sampling makes sample non-representative
- failure to prove bottles were cleaned and dried is fatal
- benefit of doubt when mandatory provisions not complied with
