Non-compliance with the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and the Rules of 1955 can lead to the benefit of doubt for the accused, especially in cases where the prosecution fails to establish compliance with the legal requirements.

JUDGMENT :

1. These two revision applications arise out of the same incident and therefore, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. Challenge in these revision applications is to the order dated 28.08.2015 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Wardha in Criminal Appeal Nos. 91 of 2012 and 90 of 2012, whereby the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeals and confirmed the order of conviction and sentence of the applicant awarded by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Wardha by his separate judgment and order dated 22.06.2012 in Regular Criminal Case Nos. 61/2010 (old R.C.C. No. 160/2003) and 357/2003.

3. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Wardha, in R.C.C. No. 357/2003 had convicted the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 16(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1954” for short) and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer further imprisonment for two months. In R.C.C. No. 61/2010, the applicant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 16(1-C) of the Act of 1954 and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer further imprisonment for 15 days.

4. The facts are as follows :

The applicant (hereinafter referred to as “the accused”) was running a shop under the name and style as “Umesh Traders” at Sindhi Market, Wardha. On 02.12.2002 at about 1.00 p.m., Food Inspector Sudam Nandanwar along with panch witness Kishor Hirani paid visit to the shop of the accused. He found that four tins of “Swad Groundnut oil” were kept for sale in the said shop. The Food Inspector apprised the accused the purpose of his visit to the shop. He carried out inspection of the shop. After inspection, he disclosed his intention to draw sample of oil from the tins. The Food Inspector purchased 450 ml groundnut oil as a sample from the accused. By a notice in Form-VI, the accused was informed that the sample was taken for the purpose of analysis. Food Inspector also issued notice under Section 14-A of the Act of 1954 to the accused and called upon him to disclose the name of the manufacturer of the groundnut oil.

5. The Food Inspector collected the purchased groundnut oil in clean, dry and empty stainless still pot. It was divided in three parts. Each part was then filled in clean, dry and empty glass bottles. The three bottles were packed, labeled and sealed. The three bottles were then wrapped separately in a thick brown paper. The paper slips bearing signature of Local Health Authority, Wardha was pasted on the same. The bottles were again vertically and horizontally tied by means of twill/thread and wax seal was affixed on the knot of the twill and at other three places of each sample packets. The Food Inspector obtained signature of the accused and panch on the paper slips. The Food Inspector drew memorandum panchanma of all the above events. The Food Inspector seized three groundnut oil tins.

6. The Food Inspector forwarded the samples to the Public Analyst by following the procedure. The Public Analyst on analysis found that the samples of groundnut oil did not conform to the standard of groundnut oil as per the provisions of the Food and Drug Administration Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 1955” for short). Food Inspector forwarded the papers to the Joint Commissioner, Food and Drugs Administration for according sanction to prosecute the accused. On receipt of the sanction order, initially the Food Inspector filed the complaint against the accused for commission of offence under Section 16(1) of the Act of 1954. Later on, he filed separate complaint against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 16(1-C) of the Act of 1954.

7. The common evidence was recorded in both the cases. The prosecution examined two witnesses. The accused examined on