The summary procedure under section 16-A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 is not available for offences committed before its insertion, and the Central Food Laboratory report supersedes the Public Analyst's report, requiring a fresh sanction to prosecute the accused for the offence newly disclosed.

Headnote:
PREVENTION OF FOOD ADULTERATION ACT, 1954 - SECTION 2(I)(J), 2(I)(F), 13(2), 16, 16(1), 16(1-A), 16-A - SUMMARY TRIAL - OFFENCE DISCLOSED BY PUBLIC ANALYST AND CENTRAL FOOD LABORATORY REPORTS ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE - SUMMARY PROCEDURE UNDER SECTION 16-A NOT AVAILABLE FOR OFFENCES COMMITTED BEFORE ITS INSERTION - PLEA OF GUILTY NOT PROPERLY RECORDED - CONVICTION AND SENTENCE SET ASIDE.
Fact of the Case:

The respondent was charged with adulteration of chilli powder under section 7(i) read with section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The Public Analyst's report showed extraneous color in the sample, while the Central Food Laboratory report showed lumpiness and insect infestation. The trial Magistrate accepted the respondent's plea of guilt and sentenced him to one day's simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the trial Magistrate erred in proceeding with the prosecution based on the Public Analyst's report after receiving the Central Food Laboratory report, as the latter superseded the former. The court also held that the summary procedure under section 16-A of the Act was not available for offences committed before its insertion, and that the Magistrate failed to notice the changes brought about in section 16 while resorting to the procedure prescribed under section 16-A.
Issues: 1. Whether the trial Magistrate could proceed with the prosecution based on the Public Analyst's report after receiving the Central Food Laboratory report? 2. Whether the summary procedure under section 16-A of the Act was available for offences committed before its insertion?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Central Food Laboratory report supersedes the Public Analyst's report, and if the Central Food Laboratory report discloses another offence, a fresh sanction would be necessary to prosecute the accused of the offence newly disclosed. 2. The summary procedure under section 16-A of the Act was not available for offences committed before its insertion, as section 16-A specifically mentions that all offences punishable under sub-section (1) of section 16 shall be tried in a summary way, and the offences mentioned in section 16(1-A) could not be the subject-matter of summary trial under section 16-14 of the Act.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the State's appeal for enhancement of sentence and set aside the order of conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Magistrate. The complaint filed by the Food Inspector was returned to him, and the fine paid by the respondent was ordered to be refunded.

JUDGMENT - R.A. JAHAGIRDAR, J.:---The several irregularities in the prosecution out of which the present appeal arises cannot be appreciated unless the facts are stated in at least chronological order first.

2. On 23rd July, 1973 the Food Inspector of Kolhapur purchased 600 grams of chilli powder from a restaurant called Hotel Kalpana and Lunch Home, situated on Subhash Road at Kolhapur. One Gopal Achanna Shetty was the proprietor of the said establishment and one Srinivas Subrao Shenvi, the respondent in this appeal, was said to be the person in charge of the said restaurant. Obviously it means that the present respondent was a servant of Gopal Ayhanna Shetty, the proprietor of the restaurant. The chilli powder which was purchased by the Food Inspector was, as usual, divided into three equal parts and one sample of 200 grams was sent to the Public Analyst whose report shows that the sample examined by him contained extraneous colour thus bringing the adulteration of the sample within the meaning of section 2(i)(j) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. On the basis of this report and indeed by incorporating the contents of this report, the Food Inspector filed this complaint which was registered as Criminal Case No. 104 of 1974. In that complaint both the proprietor and the present respondent were made accused Nos. 1 and 2 respectively. I have been informed that accused No. 1 absconded during the trial and his case was separated and the trial proceeded against accused No. 2 alone. The complaint referred to above was filed by the Food Inspector on 16th January, 1974.

3. An application was made on behalf of the respondent on 16th July, 1974 under section 13(2) of the Act requesting that one or the other of the two samples may be sent to the Director of the Central Food Laboratory at Calcutta. From the recitals in the certificate issued by the Central Food Laboratory at Calcutta, I notice that on 29th July, 1974 the sample was sent to the Central Food Laboratory which received the same on 12th August, 1974. No reply was received by the Food Inspector from Calcutta for a long time and he made an application to the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class of Kolhapur, where the case was pending, for reminding the Central Food Laboratory about the samples sent to them. Again from the recitals mentioned in the certificate of the Central Food Laboratory a reminder seems to have been sent and thereafter the sample of the chilly powder was taken up for analysis by the Central Food Laboratory sometime after July, 1975. The report of the analysis made by the Laboratory is dated 21st August, 1975, and it discloses that the sample of chilly powder sent to that Laboratory was lumpy and insect infested with a few live insects. Not a word has been said about the extraneous colour in the sample analysed by the Central Food Laboratory. If the report of the public Analyst is to be accepted, then the offence disclosed is one under section 2(i)(j) of the Act, whereas the offence disclosed by the report of the Central Food Laboratory is one under section 2(i)(f) of the Act. They are not mutually even overlapping and must he held to be mutually exclusive thus disclosing two distinct offences in respect of the same commodity alleged to have been purchased by the Food Inspector. Another disturbing feature of this prosecution is the extraordinary delay in the analysis made by the Central Food Laboratory. I have already mentioned above that the sample was received by the Central Food Laboratory on 12th August, 1974. More than one year after that date these sample was taken up for analysis. This at any rate, in my opinion, explains the lumpiness of the sample and probably also the insects found in the sample.

4. Section 13(2) of the Act, as it the Act as it then stood, required the Director of the Central Food Laboratory to send a certificate after the analysis of the sample to the Court in the prescribed from within one month from the date of th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document