IMPORTANT POINT
When Report of a Public Analyst was superseded by a certificate of Director of Central Food Laboratory, it is not necessary to obtain a fresh consent to institute prosecution and recommence the proceedings under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

Headnote:Food Adulteration Act, 1954-Section 20 r/w Sections 16(1-A) and 2(1)(h)-Sanction for prosecution-When report of public Analyst stood superseded by Certificate of Director of Central Food Laboratory it is not necessary to obtain a fresh consent to continue prosecution which was validly instituted.
       Held : When the Certificate superseded the Report of the Public Analyst the latter stands sunk to the bottom and in that place the Certificate alone would remain on the surface of evidence and hence that certificate alone can be considered as for the facts stated therein regarding the sample concerned. Thus the real contention posed is whether a fresh consent of the authority concerned is required when the said Certificate has taken the place of the Report of the Public Analyst. (Para 11)
       The certificate of the Director of the Central Food Laboratory can be brought in evidence only in the post-institutional stage of a case, whereas the report of the Public Analyst can be obtained during pre-institution stage of the prosecution. There is no scope for countenancing a situation when prosecution proceedings can be instituted with the Certificate of the Director of the Central Food Laboratory. What was in evidence in the form of Report of the Public Analyst stands substituted, during the evidence stage, by the Certificate of the Director of Central Food Laboratory. In other words, after evidence stage is commenced a new document would take the place of an existing material already admitted in evidence. Thereafter no legal provision requires the case to be switched back to the pre-institution stage. The purpose of insisting that the consenting authority should seriously apply his mind before according consent for launching prosecution, is to prevent unnecessary or frivolous prosecution at the instance of any complainant against traders in food articles. But once prosecution is instituted validly the matter is in the hands of the judicial functionary and further proceedings can be controlled by such functionary. The authority granting consent for institution of prosecution is in no way more suited for preventing unnecessary prosecution than judicial functionaries. Therefore, a switch back to the pre-institution stage is unnecessary and hence unwarranted. (Paras 18 & 19)
       Report of the Public Analyst alone is contemplated for instituting the prosecution and consent or sanction is necessary only for such institution, and that a post institutional development while exercising a statutory right conferred on the accused for challenging the report of the Public Analyst during trial is not a premise for turning the key backward for a fresh institution of the prosecution, whatever be the result of the analysis made by the Central Food Laboratory. (Para 23)
       If the prosecution has been validly instituted, neither any new data nor any added reasons contained in the Certificate issued by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory would be sufficient to annul the sanction already obtained with which the prosecution was already instituted. The trial has to process with the Certificate on record which superseded the Report of the Public Analyst. (Para 26)

JUDGMENT

Thomas, J.-Delay condoned. Leave granted.

2. When Report of a Public Analyst was superseded by a certificate of Director of Central Food Laboratory, is it necessary to obtain a fresh consent to institute prosecution and recommence the proceedings under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short the Act )? A Single Judge of the High Court of Kerala held that it is necessary, and directed the trial magistrate to wait for some more time and "in the event of no such consent of the appropriate authority is obtained and produced before the magistrate within a reasonable time - not exceeding one month - for the purpose", discharge the accused. The Food Inspector who instituted the prosecution as well as the State have filed this appeal by special leave against the said order of the High Court.

3. The facts out of which the said order happened to be passed, are the following :

Appellant - Food Inspector filed a complaint against the respondent with the following allegations : While the complainant was acting as Food Inspector of Mobile Vigilance Squad (Ernakulam) he visited the grocery shop of the respondent on 15.4.96 and purchased 750 gms. of "Toor Dal" for the purpose of taking sample as per the provisions of the Act. The sample was taken in the manner provided by the Act and one of the three parts of the sample was sent to the Public Analyst who, after analysis, sent a Report stating that the sample contained Kesari Dal and hence it was adulterated. Thereupon the complaint was filed on the premise that the respondent has committed the offence under Section 16(1-A) of the Act read with Section 2(1)(h) and Section 7(1) of the Act.

4. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam before whom the complaint was filed issued process to the respondent as accused. After entering appearance in the case the respondent moved an application for sending a second part of the sample to the Director of Central Food Laboratory. It was sent accordingly and upon the same being analysed at the Central Food Laboratory the Director thereof sent a certificate to the trial Court stating that the sample does not contain "Kesari Dal" but the food article in the sample was adulterated as it contained synthetic Coal Tar Dye (Tarterzine). On receipt of the said Certificate the trial magistrate converted the case from summary trial to a warrant case trial. After examining three witnesses for the prosecution the trial magistrate framed a charge against the accused on 10.3.1997. The material portion of the charge reads thus :

"Whereas on 15.4.1996 at 2 p.m. Food Inspector had purchased 750 grams of Toor Dal exposed for sale in your shop in a bag for Rs. 21/- and when it was sent for analysis to the Central Food Laboratory it was found that the Toor Dal purchased from you was below standard and had contained synthetic colour and was adulterated as revealed from examination of prosecution witnesses and records and your act is an offence punishable under Section 2(1A)(a)(h); 7(i) read with 16(1-A)(I) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and that you are to be tried for the aforesaid offence before this Court."

5. Respondent filed a revision before the High Court in challenge of the order framing charge. The counsel for respondent contended before the High Court that no such charge could be framed since a new offence had been revealed by the Certificate of the Director of Central Food Laboratory. He also contended, alternatively, that when the Report of the Public Analyst was found to be wrong the only course open to the court was to acquit the accused because the complaint was based on that Report. Lastly, it was contended that the complainant had not obtained sanction under Section 20 of the Act on the strength of the new facts revealed in the Certificate issued by the Director of Central Food Laboratory and hence a fresh sanction is necessary for proceeding with the case.

6. Learned Single Judge did not accept the first set of conte

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

2000 Supreme(SC) 1103

IMPORTANT POINTWhen Report of a Public Analyst was superseded by a certificate of Director of Central Food Laboratory, it is not necessary to obtain a fresh consent to institute prosecution and recommence the proceedings under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

Cases Referred (1)

Judicial Analysis

IMPORTANT POINT
When Report of a Public Analyst was superseded by a certificate of Director of Central Food Laboratory, it is not necessary to obtain a fresh consent to institute prosecution and recommence the proceedings under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.