Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra appealed against the judgment and order of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bramhapuri, in Regular Criminal Case No.68 of 2000 dated 18-12-2002, which acquitted the respondent-accused Vilas Madhaorao Tundulwar for offences under Section 7(i) read with Section 2(ia)(a) and Section 7(i) read with Section 2(ia)(m) punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(ii) and Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and the Rules thereunder. The facts are that on 04-10-1999, Food Inspector Laxman Taksande visited the accused's shop, M/s Madhao Kirana Stores, and purchased 450 gms of groundnut oil from 10 packed tins of 15 kgs each of Suraj Brand groundnut oil kept for sale. The sample was divided into three parts, sealed, and sent to the Public Analyst, who reported that the sample did not conform to the standards of groundnut oil under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. The prosecution examined two witnesses. The trial court acquitted the accused on the grounds that the sample was not representative and that there was non-compliance with Rules 14 and 16 of the Rules, 1955. The High Court, after hearing the Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and the counsel for the respondent, and perusing the record, found no reason to interfere with the acquittal. The appeal was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Prevention of Food Adulteration - Sampling Procedure - Non-compliance with Rules 14 and 16 - The prosecution failed to comply with Rules 14 and 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, and the sample was not representative. The trial court acquitted the accused, and the High Court upheld the acquittal, finding no infirmity in the trial court's reasoning. (Paras 3-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the acquittal of the accused for offences under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 was justified due to non-compliance with Rules 14 and 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 and the sample not being representative.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the acquittal of the accused.
Law Points
- Non-compliance with Rules 14 and 16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules
- 1955
- Sample not representative
- Acquittal upheld
Case Details
2017 LawText (BOM) (08) 212
Criminal Appeal No.372 of 2003
Mrs. S.Z. Haider, Additional Public Prosecutor for State; Mr. V.A. Laghate, Counsel for respondent
State of Maharashtra, through L.Z. Taksande, Food Inspector
Vilas Madhaorao Tundulwar
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
State sought conviction of the accused for offences under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954
Filing Reason
The trial court acquitted the accused due to non-compliance with Rules 14 and 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 and the sample not being representative
Previous Decisions
The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bramhapuri, acquitted the accused in Regular Criminal Case No.68 of 2000 on 18-12-2002
Issues
Whether the sample of groundnut oil was representative as per the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955
Whether the prosecution complied with Rules 14 and 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955
Submissions/Arguments
State argued that the trial court erred in acquitting the accused despite the Public Analyst report showing adulteration
Respondent argued that the sample was not representative and there was non-compliance with Rules 14 and 16
Ratio Decidendi
The acquittal was justified because the sample was not representative and the prosecution failed to comply with Rules 14 and 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955.
Judgment Excerpts
The learned Magistrate after considering the evidence came to the conclusion that there are infirmities in the prosecution case. Those infirmities are that, the sample was not representative sample and the prosecution has not complied with the provisions under Rules 14 and 16 of the Rules, 1955.
I have gone through the record of the case. I have heard Mrs. S.Z. Haider, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Mr. V.A. Laghate the learned Counsel for the respondent. I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Magistrate.
Procedural History
The Food Inspector filed a complaint leading to Regular Criminal Case No.68 of 2000 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bramhapuri, who acquitted the accused on 18-12-2002. The State appealed to the High Court in Criminal Appeal No.372 of 2003, which was dismissed on 24-08-2017.
Acts & Sections
- Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954: Section 7(i), Section 2(ia)(a), Section 2(ia)(m), Section 16(1)(a)(ii), Section 16(1)(a)(i)
- Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955: Rule 14, Rule 16
