IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for scrupulous compliance with the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, in sample collection and testing, and the admissibility of evidence based on such compliance.

JUDGMENT :

NISHA M. THAKORE, J.

1. This is an appeal at the instance of the State under Section 378 (3) of Criminal Procedure Code, against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 31.12.2019 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajkot (hereinafter “learned Magistrate”) in Criminal Case No. 516 of 1996. By the said judgment and order, the learned Magistrate has acquitted the respondent-accused for the offence alleged under Sections 7 (1) (5) and 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, (hereinafter “the Act”).

2. According to case of the prosecution as alleged in the complaint, on 24.11.1995, the Food Inspector-Mr. K.C. Kumbi under the supervision of Local Health Authority (LHA) had reached the place of offence along with one panch witness Mr. Maheshbhai Laxmanbhai at the premises of respondent/original accused-Mr. Shaileshbhai Mansukhlal Shah at Kadia Line Gondal, District-Rajkot. It is averred that the accused was found conducting the businesses of various food articles lying in his store, which were essentially for human consumption. The Food Inspector had disclosed his identity and had expressed his intention to purchase a sample of turmeric powder from the vendor as lying in the iron jar, which was without any label declaring its contents. The vendor had agreed to such purchase. According to the complainant, the sample was then lifted as per the procedure prescribed under the Food Adulteration Act and the Rules framed thereunder.

2.1 It is contended that each sample was separately packed, fastened, marked and sealed and the documents were prepared at the spot including the Notice Form-VI, even the panchnama was drawn at the spot. It is further claimed that the price of the sample was paid to the vendor. Thereafter, one counterpart of the sample was sent in the intact condition to the Public Analyst’s Office along with two other counterparts along with letter dated 26.12.1995. The said samples were tested by the Public Analyst and upon examination, the samples were found to be adulterated. The reason which was assigned by the Public Analyst in his report, was that artificial colour was not declared as an ingredient in the said sample, which was otherwise found present in the sample. Upon receipt of such note, the Local Health Authority had directed the Food Inspector to proceed with the complaint. Necessary sanction under Section 20 of the Act was obtained from the Competent Officer, this led to lodging of the complaint before the court of learned Magistrate, Gondal, which was registered as Criminal Case No. 516 of 1996.

2.2 The compliant was filed on 22.04.1996 alleging violation of Sections 2(1-a), (a), (b), (j) and (1) and 7(1)(5) of the Act read with provisions of Section 16 of the said Act. The learned Magistrate proceeded with the complaint while dispensing with the recording of the statement of the public servant, issued summons upon the respondent-accused by order dated 22.04.1996. The accused had appeared before the trial court and had filed an application under Section 13(2) of the Act enforcing his right to get the second opinion as regards the counterpart of the sample to be analyzed from the Central Food Laboratory (CFL). Such application preferred by the respondent-accused was allowed by the trial court and the rest of the counterpart of the sample were sent for further analysis to the office of Central Food Laboratory. The CFL had examined the samples so recovered and had issued certificate on 12.01.2001, thereby opining that the sample was adulterated on the ground that it contained pink and orange shade oil soluble coal tar dyes and the turmeric powder was also adulterated with rice starches.

2.3 Based on the aforesaid report, the trial court proceeded to record the statement of the complainant/PW-1 Food Inspector-Ajrunbhai Kesarbhai Kher. On the basis of his deposition at the precharge evidence stage, the trial court framed charge against the accused for the offence punishable un