Case Note & Summary
The Municipal Corporation of Amravati filed a criminal writ petition challenging the acquittal of the respondents in a case under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The Food Inspector had collected a sample of 'supari' from the respondents' shop and sent it for analysis, which found it adulterated. The trial court acquitted the respondents on the ground that the prosecution failed to comply with the mandatory procedure under Rule 14 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, which requires the sample to be sent to the public analyst immediately after sampling. The High Court examined the evidence and found that there was a delay in sending the sample, and the prosecution did not explain the delay. The court held that the mandatory procedure under Rule 14 was not followed, and this defect could not be cured by the accused's failure to exercise their right under Section 13(2) of the Act to get the sample analyzed by the Central Food Laboratory. The court also noted that the trial court's findings were not perverse and were based on evidence. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the acquittal.
Headnote
A) Prevention of Food Adulteration - Sampling Procedure - Rule 14 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 - Mandatory Compliance - The prosecution failed to prove that the sample was taken and sent for analysis in accordance with the mandatory procedure under Rule 14, which requires the sample to be sent to the public analyst immediately after sampling. The court held that non-compliance with this mandatory procedure vitiates the prosecution, as it casts doubt on the integrity of the sample. (Paras 10-15) B) Prevention of Food Adulteration - Right to Get Sample Analyzed by Central Food Laboratory - Section 13(2) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - Waiver - The accused did not exercise their right under Section 13(2) to get the sample analyzed by the Central Food Laboratory. However, the court held that this does not cure the defect in the prosecution's case regarding non-compliance with Rule 14, as the burden lies on the prosecution to prove compliance with mandatory procedures. (Paras 16-18) C) Criminal Procedure - Acquittal - Interference by High Court - Scope - The High Court, in a criminal writ petition against acquittal, can interfere only if the findings are perverse or based on no evidence. The court found that the trial court's findings regarding non-compliance with Rule 14 were based on evidence and not perverse, and therefore, no interference was warranted. (Paras 19-21)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the failure to follow the mandatory procedure under Rule 14 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, regarding the manner of taking and sending samples for analysis, vitiates the prosecution, and whether the accused's right under Section 13(2) of the Act to get the sample analyzed by the Central Food Laboratory was waived.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the acquittal of the respondents.
Law Points
- Prevention of Food Adulteration Act
- 1954
- Section 13(2)
- Rule 14 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules
- 1955
- mandatory procedure
- sampling
- right to get sample analyzed by Central Food Laboratory
- waiver
- acquittal
