Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra, through the Food Inspector, filed an appeal against the acquittal of the respondents (accused) by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dahiwadi, Satara, for offences under Sections 7(i) read with 2(ia)(a), 2(ia)(m) and Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The trial court acquitted the accused on two grounds: first, the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the sample of Tata Iodised Salt was collected from the accused's shop in the presence of an independent witness, as P.W.2 deposed that his signature was obtained on blank paper; second, the mandate of Section 13(2) was not followed as the report of the Public Analyst was not forwarded to the accused, which defeated his valuable right to get the sample analyzed by the Central Food Laboratory. The High Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the evidence on record. The court noted that admittedly, the mandate of Section 13(2) had not been followed, which is a valuable right available to the accused. Relying on the Supreme Court decision in Rameshwar Dayal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1995 Supp. (4) SCC 659, the court held that the failure to supply the Public Analyst report to the accused as required under Section 13(2) deprived him of the opportunity to get his own sample examined by the Central Laboratory, which is a very valuable right. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the acquittal.
Headnote
A) Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - Section 13(2) - Right of Accused to Get Sample Analyzed by Central Food Laboratory - Non-compliance with Section 13(2) is fatal to prosecution - The trial court acquitted the accused on the ground that the report of the Public Analyst was not forwarded to the accused, depriving him of his valuable right to get the sample analyzed by the Central Food Laboratory. The High Court upheld the acquittal, holding that the mandate of Section 13(2) is a valuable right and its non-compliance vitiates the prosecution. (Paras 1-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the acquittal of the accused by the trial court on the ground of non-compliance with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 is sustainable?
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the acquittal of the accused.
Law Points
- Non-compliance with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act
- 1954 is fatal to prosecution
- Failure to supply Public Analyst report to accused deprives him of valuable right to get sample analyzed by Central Food Laboratory
