Back
1968 Supreme(Bom) 113
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Vaidya G.N, J.
Appellants: B.A. Sawant
Vs.
Respondent: State
Criminal Appeal No. 1951 of 1966Decided On: 10.07.1968
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: A.A. Peerbhoy and S.C. Thube, Advs.
For Respondents/Defendant: R.G. Rege, Hon Assistant to Government Pleader
Strict compliance with the mandatory provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, and the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, is essential to ensure the reliability of evidence in prosecutions for the sale of adulterated food.
Headnote:
PREVENTION OF FOOD ADULTERATION ACT - SECTION 16 (1) (A) (I) - SECTION 7 (I) - RULE 5-A 11-01-02 OF APPENDIX B TO THE PREVENTION OF FOOD ADULTERATION RULES, 1955 - SALE OF ADULTERATED BUFFALO MILK - STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH STATUTORY PROVISIONS MANDATORY - FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH SECTION 10 (7) AND RULE 14 - DOUBT REGARDING MANNER OF TAKING SAMPLES - BENEFIT OF DOUBT TO ACCUSED.
Fact of the Case:
The accused, a milk shop owner, was convicted under Section 16 (1) (a) (I) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, for selling buffalo milk containing extraneous water. The prosecution relied on the report of the Public Analyst and the Director of the Central Food Laboratory, which showed that the milk contained 17.7% and 21% of extraneous water, respectively. The accused denied the charges and claimed that the Food Inspector had taken the sample without his consent and that the bottles used were not clean and dry as required by Rule 14 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Food Inspector had failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 10 (7) of the Act, which requires the presence of independent witnesses during the inspection and taking of samples. The court also noted that the Food Inspector had not provided any evidence to show that he had used clean and dry bottles as required by Rule 14. The court further observed that there was a significant discrepancy between the analysis reports of the Public Analyst and the Director of the Central Food Laboratory, which raised doubts about the reliability of the samples.
Issues: 1. Whether the Food Inspector had complied with the mandatory provisions of Section 10 (7) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, and Rule 14 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. 2. Whether the discrepancy between the analysis reports of the Public Analyst and the Director of the Central Food Laboratory raised doubts about the reliability of the samples.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the Food Inspector's failure to comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 10 (7) and Rule 14 affected his credibility and required corroboration of his evidence. 2. The court found that the significant discrepancy between the analysis reports of the Public Analyst and the Director of the Central Food Laboratory raised doubts about the reliability of the samples, particularly in light of the Food Inspector's failure to provide evidence of using clean and dry bottles.
Final Decision: The court gave the benefit of doubt to the accused, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted him.
2. The prosecution was started on a complaint filed by the Medical Officer of Health L and M Wards Kurla of the Bombay Municipal Corporation. Bombay, on July 13, 1966 in the Court of the learned Presidency Magistrate. 11th Court, Kurla Bombay with the previous written consent of the Deputy Executive Health Officer who is the Officer authorised by the Bombay Municipal Corporation under Section 26 (1) of the said Act for consenting to the prosecution under the Act. In the complaint it was alleged that the accused who is the Proprietor of a milk shop viz. Asha Dairy Farm situate at Abu Bakars Compound. 77. Old Agra Road, Kurla Bombay sold buffalos unboiled milk on June 2, 1966 at 11.15 A. M. in contravention of the aforesaid section and ruels because the said milk contained extraneous water 17.7 percent.
3. The only witness examined in support of the complaint was Ramchandra Rajaram Kumar (P. W. I). Food Inspector attached to L and M Wards, Kurla of the Bombay Municipal Corporation. He stated that on June 2, 1966 at about 11.15 A. M. he visited the milk shop of the accused identified himself as the Food Inspector and demanded from the accused 700 millilitres of buffalos milk. He paid the accused Rs, 1.40 p. as the price of the milk and then gave him notice under Form No. 6 stating that the sample was taken for public analysis. He obtained the signature of the accused on the acknowledgment. He divided the milk in three equal parts adding 8 drops of formalin in each bottle. He sealed the bottles and packed them in the presence of a witness. He gave one sample to the accused, retained one in his office and sent the third one to the Public Analyst, on June 2, 1966. the Public Analyst gave his report on June 23, 1966 certifying the result of the analysis of the sample sent as under:
"Fat: 5-5% Solids not-fat: 7-4% Preservatives: Formalin detected. "
The Public Analyst was of the opinion that the said sample contained the percentages of foreign ingredients as under :
" Extraneous water: 17.7 per cent: Fat Deficiency: 0 per cent." On receipt of said report, Ramchandra Kumar (P. W. 1) Food Inspector, submitted the offence sheet, Ex. C, to the Deputy Executive Health Officer, Bombay Municipal Corporation for his written consent for prosecution. The Deputy Executive Health Officer thereupon directed the Medical Officer L and M Wards, who is also the Food Inspector, to launch the prosecution and then the complaint came to be lodged against the accused. The accused made an application to the Court that the sample with him should be sent to the Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta under Section 13 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The witness then stated was sent to the Central Food Laboratory after verifying the receipt, seal thereon etc., which were found to be intact. Exh. D is the report of the Central Food Laboratory, dated September 20, 1996. The relevant portion of the said report reads thus:
"Milk Fat : 5-4%
Milk Solids: 7-1%
other than Starch milk fat canesugar : absent.Opinion: The sample of buffalo milk contains 21% of added water and is adulterated."In the cross-examination the witness stated that when he visited the shop of the accused along with him were witness Gopinath a senior Food Inspector and a peon from the office and gave the address of witness Gopinath.
4. The accused examined as his witness. Gopinath ( D. W. I). who stated that he had gone to the accused on the date on which the sample was taken by witness Kumar. At that time the other Inspector had also gone to the accused. When the sample was taken the accused was in his office. The witness was asked to see the samp
