Bombay High Court Upholds Acquittal in Food Adulteration Case — Mineral Oil as Foreign Matter Must Exceed 3% Limit Under Rule 44AAA. Clause A.05.17 of Appendix B to Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 permits extraneous matter up to 3% by weight, and mineral oil falls within that category.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: NAGPUR In Favour of Accused
  • 5
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The State of Maharashtra appealed against the acquittal of the respondent-accused, Mangala Badkhal, proprietor of M/s. Sweta Spices Industries, for offences under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The Food Inspector collected samples of black pepper from the accused's firm on 28 November 1995. The first sample sent to the Public Analyst, Nagpur, confirmed to standards. However, a second sample sent to the Public Health Laboratory, Pune, reported that the sample was coated with mineral oil in contravention of Rule 44AAA of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. The trial court acquitted the accused, holding that Clause A.05.17 of Appendix B to the Rules permits extraneous matter including dust, stalks, leafy matter and other foreign matter up to 3% by weight, and mineral oil is a foreign matter. The court reasoned that unless the prosecution established that the percentage of mineral oil exceeded 3%, contravention of Rule 44AAA was not proved. The High Court, in appeal, upheld the acquittal, agreeing with the trial court's interpretation that mineral oil falls within the definition of foreign matter under Clause A.05.17, and the prosecution failed to prove the percentage exceeded the permissible limit.

Headnote

A) Prevention of Food Adulteration - Rule 44AAA - Coating with Mineral Oil - Clause A.05.17 of Appendix B permits extraneous matter including dust, stalks, leafy matter and other foreign matter up to 3% by weight. Mineral oil is a foreign matter. Unless the prosecution establishes that the percentage of mineral oil exceeds 3%, contravention of Rule 44AAA is not proved. The trial court's acquittal was upheld. (Paras 2-3)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the presence of mineral oil on black pepper constitutes an offence under Section 7 read with Rule 44AAA of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, when Clause A.05.17 of Appendix B permits extraneous matter up to 3% by weight.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The appeal is dismissed and the acquittal of the respondent is upheld.

Law Points

  • Mineral oil is extraneous matter
  • Clause A.05.17 of Appendix B permits extraneous matter up to 3% by weight
  • Rule 44AAA prohibits coating with mineral oil but must be read with Appendix B
  • burden on prosecution to prove percentage exceeds 3%
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2018 LawText (BOM) (02) 128

Criminal Appeal No. 721 of 2002

2018-02-12

Rohit B. Deo, J.

Smt. Mayuri Deshmukh, Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant; Shri R.R. Vyas, Advocate for the respondent

State of Maharashtra, through Mr. Jagdish Khushal Kamble, Food Inspector

Mangala w/o Harishchandra Badkhal

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 respondent for offences under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954

Filing Reason

The respondent was acquitted by the trial court on the ground that mineral oil is foreign matter and the prosecution failed to prove it exceeded 3%

Previous Decisions

The trial court acquitted the respondent in Regular Criminal Case 251/1998 on 24 June 2002

Issues

Whether mineral oil on black pepper constitutes an offence under Rule 44AAA when Clause A.05.17 permits extraneous matter up to 3% by weight

Submissions/Arguments

The appellant argued that coating with mineral oil is prohibited under Rule 44AAA The respondent argued that mineral oil is foreign matter and within the 3% limit under Clause A.05.17

Ratio Decidendi

Mineral oil is a foreign matter within the meaning of Clause A.05.17 of Appendix B to the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. Unless the prosecution establishes that the percentage of mineral oil exceeds 3% by weight, contravention of Rule 44AAA is not proved.

Judgment Excerpts

The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has held that mineral oil is a foreign matter and unless it is established that the percentage of mineral oil in the black pepper exceeds 3%, contravention of Rule 44AAA of the Rules is not proved.

Procedural History

The Food Inspector filed Criminal Case 251/1998 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandrapur, who acquitted the accused on 24 June 2002. The State appealed to the High Court.

Acts & Sections

  • Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954: Section 7(i), Section 2(ia)(a), Section 16(1)(a)(ii), Section 7(v), Section 13(2E)
  • Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955: Rule 44AAA, Clause A.05.17 of Appendix B
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Upholds Acquittal in Food Adulteration Case — Mineral Oil as Foreign Matter Must Exceed 3% Limit Under Rule 44AAA. Clause A.05.17 of Appendix B to Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 permits extraneous matter up to 3% by w...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition of Tenants Challenging Demolition of Dilapidated Building. Court upholds eviction and demolition orders based on structural safety reports and compliance with statutory procedures under Section 354 of MMC Act, 188...