V. SIVARAMAN NAIR, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is filed by the State assailing the acquittal of the respondent-accused in C. C. No. 214 of 1991 by the II Addl. Judl. First Class Magistrate, Bhimavaram.

( 2 ) THE matter comes before us on a reference by our learned brother Justice G. Radhakrishna Rao. The reference was provoked by two decisions of Justice Y. Bhaskara Rao in K. Kameswara Rao v. State of A. P. , 1990 APLJ (Crl) 189 and Food Inspector, Karimnagar v. Kothakonda Shankar, 1991 APLJ (Crl) 116.

( 3 ) OUR learned brother Justice Y. Bhaskara Rao in the above two decisions held that if the samples of food articles, which were purchased by the Food Inspector, are sent for analysis in polythene bags, there will be violation of Rule 14 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules ). In the former case, the learned Judge set aside the conviction by the trial court and acquitted the accused. In the latter case, he dismissed the appeal filed by the Food Inspector, upholding the acquittal of the accused. In both these decisions, it was assumed that the only compliance with Rule 14 of the Rules shall be if the samples are collected and sent to the analyst in bottles or jars. In the latter decision, it was made clearer that Rule 14 of the Rules requires the Food Inspector to collect the samples only in suitable bottles. Since the samples in that case were collected in polythene bags, the learned Judge found that Rule 14 of the Rules was violated. In coming to the above conclusion, the learned Judge, in the former decision, stated that this Court had followed the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court regarding the said proposition.

( 4 ) RULE 14 of the Rules, which was said to have been violated, requires to be extracted. It reads :"14. Manner of sending samples for analysis :- Samples of food for the purpose of analysis shall be taken in clean drybottles or jars or in other suitable containers, which shall be closed sufficiently tight to prevent leakage, evaporation, or in the case of dry substance, entrance of moisture and shall be carefully sealed. "

( 5 ) PACKING of the samples is required to be in dry bottles or dry jars or in any other clean and dry suitable container. It is elementary that a container means that which contains, and ordinarily cannot exclude a container made of polythene. The requirements of Rule 14 are that it shall be clean and dry : it shall further be suitable as a container. Further requirements are that it shall be closed sufficiently tight to prevent leakage or evaporation. There is yet another requirement in case of dry substance that it shall also be closed sufficiently tight to prevent entrance of moisture. The last requirement is that the container shall be carefully sealed. We do not find that any one of these requirements militates against any suitable container, which satisfies all other requirements of Rule 14, to be a suitable container contemplated by the Rule.

( 6 ) IT is also necessary to refer to Rule 15, which provides that provides that bottles and containers to be labelled and addressed; Rule 16 which provides for manner of packing and sealing the samples , and Rule 17, which provides for manner of despatching containers of samples . There was no case before the trial Court nor has counsel for the accused contended before us that the requirements of Rules 15, 16 or 17 of the Rules were not complied with. We have, therefore, to proceed on the basis that all the statutory requirements of sampling were complied with, and the only dispute relates to - whether a polythene container is a suitable container as provided under Rule 14 of the Rules.

( 7 ) MR. B. Nalin Kumar, counsel appearing for the respondent, has invited our attention to a number of decisions of the Punjab and Haryana High Court and one decision of the Bombay High Court in support of his submissions. The decisions of the Punjab and Haryana High Court are those to which reference

Click Here to Read the rest of this document