Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra filed three appeals against the acquittal of the accused Harishchandra Sadhuram Agarwal, a vendor and proprietor of a kirana shop in Satara, for offences under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The Food Inspector had visited the shop on 23 September 1993 and purchased samples of groundnut oil and rapeseed oil from packed tins. The samples were sent to the Public Analyst, who reported that they did not conform to prescribed standards. After obtaining consent, complaints were filed and the accused was tried. The trial court convicted the accused, but the first appellate court acquitted him on the ground that the accused was denied the right under Section 13(2) of the Act to have the sample analyzed by the Director of Central Food Laboratory because the sample had become unfit for analysis. The State appealed against the acquittal. The High Court examined the facts and legal provisions. It noted that the accused had applied for sending the sample to the Director, but the sample was found to be in a decomposed state and could not be sent. The court held that the right under Section 13(2) is a valuable right and its denial vitiates the conviction. The court also observed that the prosecution failed to prove that the sample was kept in proper condition. The High Court found that the appellate court's view was plausible and not perverse, and therefore dismissed the appeals, upholding the acquittal.
Headnote
A) Prevention of Food Adulteration - Right to Send Sample to Director - Section 13(2) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - Valuable Right - The accused has a valuable right under Section 13(2) to have the sample analyzed by the Director of Central Food Laboratory, and if the sample is not in a condition to be sent, the accused is deprived of that right, leading to acquittal. The court held that the prosecution must ensure the sample remains fit for analysis until the right is exercised or waived. (Paras 1-34) B) Prevention of Food Adulteration - Sampling Procedure - Rule 18 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 - Mandatory Compliance - The failure to follow the sampling procedure under Rule 18, including proper sealing and dispatch, can render the sample unfit for analysis, and the accused cannot be convicted if the sample is not available for re-analysis. The court held that the burden is on the prosecution to prove compliance with the rules. (Paras 1-34) C) Criminal Procedure - Appeal Against Acquittal - Section 378 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Scope of Interference - The High Court in an appeal against acquittal should not interfere unless the findings of the lower appellate court are perverse or unreasonable. The court held that the appellate court's view was plausible and based on evidence, hence no interference warranted. (Paras 1-34)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the acquittal of the accused by the first appellate court on the ground that the accused was denied the right to have the sample analyzed by the Director of Central Food Laboratory under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 is sustainable in law.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed all three appeals, upholding the acquittal of the accused by the first appellate court.
Law Points
- Right of accused to have sample analyzed by Director of Central Food Laboratory under Section 13(2) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act
- 1954 is a valuable right
- non-compliance vitiates conviction
- burden on prosecution to prove compliance with mandatory procedure
