Back
2025 Supreme(Gau) 1471
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
PRANJAL DAS, J.
Md. Tayez Ali, S/o- Zodib Ali – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Assam – Respondent
Crl.Rev.P.519 of 2012
Decided on : 07-08-2025
For the Petitioner: MR.D BANIA, MR.A BAREK,MR.B CHOUDHURY
For the Respondent: PP, ASSAM
Failure to adhere to procedural requirements such as stirring samples and timely submission to analysts can invalidate a conviction under food safety laws.
Headnote:(A) Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - Sections 7 and 16 - Conviction and sentencing of milk vendor for selling adulterated milk based on sample analysis findings - Deficiency in procedural compliance, particularly in stirring samples before collection and delay in sending to analyst were pivotal issues. The court emphasized that stirring is necessary for representative sampling despite not being explicitly mandated by the Act. (Paras 6, 13, 14, 17)
(B) Criminal Procedure - The standard of proof in criminal trials requires foundational facts to be established by the prosecution beyond a reasonable doubt. Failure to prove compliance with procedural requirements can render the conviction incorrect. (Paras 12, 17)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted for selling milk that was found deficient in fat and solids after analysis by public analyst, following a complaint by a Senior Food Inspector. Two trials upheld this conviction.
Findings of Court:
The court found substantive procedural deficiencies impacting the integrity of the prosecution, resulting in a lack of adequate evidence to support the conviction.
Issues: The court examined whether the procedural errors regarding sample preparation and analysis were fatal to the prosecution's case.
Ratio Decidendi: The need for preliminary stirring of milk for sample integrity was reaffirmed as a non-negotiable condition for valid prosecution in food safety contexts.
Result: Revision allowed; prior conviction and sentence set aside.
JUDGMENT :
PRANJAL DAS, J.
Heard Mr. B. Chowdhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. S.H. Bora, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The revision petitioner, namely, Md. Tayez Ali, has filed this petition aggrieved by the concurrent decisions of the learned courts below convicting and sentencing him under Section 7 r/w Section 16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (herein PFA Act).
3. The case was initiated based on a complaint dated 07.11.2008 by the Senior Food Inspector, Bongaigaon, during normal checking and the present petitioner, who was a milk vendor, was checked with regard to the milk that he was stated to be selling at Chapaguri, Bongaigaon. The sample sent to the public analyst also returned an adverse finding, stating that the milk was deficient in milk fat and solids, not fat as per standards prescribed in Appendix B of the PFA Act and Rules and hence, was adulterated as per the same law.
4. The complaint resulted in the prosecution of the revision petitioner and during the trial, the Senior Food Inspector and one peon working in the office of Joint Director of Health Services, Bongaigaon were examined as prosecution witnesses, being PW-1 and PW-2, both of whom were cross-examined. Various documents were exhibited by the prosecution. After appreciating the evidence and hearing the parties, the learned trial court being the court of the learned CJM in CR Case No. 46/2009, vide judgment and order dated 23.02.2010 convicted and sentenced the revision petitioner as already mentioned above. The said judgment and order was taken up in appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Bongaigaon and the consequent appeal, being Criminal Appeal No. 9(1)/2010 was disposed of by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC, Bongaigaon vide judgment and order dated 27.07.2012 by upholding the conviction and sentence without making any changes therein. Accordingly, the convicted appellant is before this Court with the revision. Original trial court records were procured.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner who based his submissions mainly on two contentions/points- No. (i) that before taking the sample of milk, there was no stirring of the same on the part of the senior food inspector; (ii), that the sample was sent to the public analyst after three days instead of the stipulated two days as required by Rule 18 of the PFA Rules. The aforesaid Rule 18 of the PFA Rules 1954, may be reproduced herein below-
“18. Memorandum and impression of seal to be sent separately- A copy of the memorandum and specimen impression of the seal used to seal the packet shall be sent, in a sealed packet separately to the Public Analyst by any suitable means immediately but not later than the succeeding working days.”
6. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed before this court a judgment of this court rendered in the case of Jitendra Lal Gope vs. State of Tripura , reported in (2011) 2 GLR 829. In the said judgment, this Court referred to two decisions relied upon by the learned counsel in that case being Food Inspector, Municipal Corporation, Baroda vs. Madanlal Ramlal Sharma & Anr., reported in (1983) Crl. LJ 337 and State of Haryana vs. Daya Nand , reported in AIR (2004) SC 4358
7. In para 7 of Madanlal Ramlal Sharma (supra), the Court reproduced para 8 of Daya Nath (supra), in which the Honorable Supreme Court held as-
Our attention was not drawn to any provision in the Act or the Rules making it obligatory that churning should be done with some machine so as to make a sample homogeneous and representative sample. We are conscious of the fact that in milk and milk preparations including curd, it is distinctly possible that the fat settles on the top and in order to find out whether the milk or its preparation such as curd has prescribed content, the sample must be homogeneous and representative so that the analysis can furnish reliable proof of nature and content of the ar
