Back
2000 Supreme(Ker) 321
Judges : K.T.THOMAS,R.P.SETHI
Food Inspector - Appellant
Versus
Sreenivasa Shenoy - Respondent
Case No : Crl. A. No. 545 of 2000
Decided On : 07/19/2000
Advocates Appeared :
For the Petitioner:--- For the Respondent:----
Once prosecution is validly instituted, no further consent is required even if the evidence changes or new reasons are presented during the trial.
Headnote:
Delay condoned. Leave granted. When Report of a Public Analyst was superseded by a certificate of Director of Central Food Laboratory, is it necessary to obtain a fresh consent to institute prosecution and recommence the proceedings under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short 'the Act')? - Food Adulteration - Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (S. 10, S. 11, S. 13, S. 16, S. 20, S. 216) - The court discussed the necessity of obtaining fresh consent to institute prosecution and recommence the proceedings under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 when the Report of a Public Analyst was superseded by a certificate of Director of Central Food Laboratory. The court analyzed the relevant provisions of the Act, particularly S. 13, and emphasized that the Certificate of the Director of the Central Food Laboratory can be brought in evidence only in the post-institutional stage of a case, and once prosecution is instituted validly, no further consent is required. The court also discussed conflicting views of different High Courts on this legal proposition and ultimately held that if the prosecution has been validly instituted, neither any new data nor any added reasons contained in the Certificate issued by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory would be sufficient to annul the sanction already obtained with which the prosecution was already instituted. The trial has to proceed with the Certificate on record which superseded the Report of the Public Analyst.
Fact of the Case:
The Food Inspector filed a complaint against the respondent for selling adulterated Toor Dal. The Public Analyst's report was superseded by a certificate of the Director of Central Food Laboratory, leading to a dispute over the necessity of obtaining fresh consent to institute prosecution and recommence the proceedings under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that if the prosecution has been validly instituted, neither any new data nor any added reasons contained in the Certificate issued by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory would be sufficient to annul the sanction already obtained with which the prosecution was already instituted. The trial has to proceed with the Certificate on record which superseded the Report of the Public Analyst.
Issues: The main issue was whether it was necessary to obtain a fresh consent to institute prosecution and recommence the proceedings under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 when the Report of a Public Analyst was superseded by a certificate of Director of Central Food Laboratory.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that if the prosecution has been validly instituted, neither any new data nor any added reasons contained in the Certificate issued by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory would be sufficient to annul the sanction already obtained with which the prosecution was already instituted. The trial has to proceed with the Certificate on record which superseded the Report of the Public Analyst.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order of the High Court.
KT. Thomas, J.
Delay condoned. Leave granted.
2. When Report of a Public Analyst was superseded by a certificate of Director of Central Food Laboratory, is it necessary to obtain a fresh consent to institute prosecution and recommence the proceedings under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short 'the Act')?. A Single Judge of the High Court of Kerala held that it is necessary, and directed the trial Magistrate to wait for some more time and "in the event of no such consent of the appropriate authority is obtained and produced before the Magistrate within a reasonable time-not exceeding one month- for the purpose", discharge the accused. The Food Inspector who instituted the prosecution as well as the State have filed this appeal by Special Leave against the said order of the High Court.
3. The facts out of which the said order happened to be passed, are the following:
Appellant - Food Inspector filed a complaint against the respondent with the following allegations: While the complainant was acting as Food Inspector of Mobile Vigilance Squad (Ernakulam) he visited the grocery shop of the respondent on 15.4.1996 and purchased 750 gms. of "Toor Dal" for the purpose of taking sample as per the provisions of the Act. The sample was taken in the manner provided by the Act and one of the three parts of the sample was' sent to the Public Analyst who, after analysis, sent a Report stating that the sample contained Kesari Dal and hence it was adulterated. Thereupon, the complaint was filed on the premise that the respondent has committed the offence under S. 16(1A) of the Act read with S. 2(1)(h) and S. 7(1) of the Act.
4. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam before whom the complaint was filed issued process to the respondent as accused. After entering appearance in the case the respondent moved an application for sending a second part of the sample to the Director of Central Food Laboratory. It was sent accordingly and upon the same being analysed at the Central Food Laboratory the Director thereof sent a certificate to the trial court stating that the sample does not contain "Kesari Dal" but the food article in the sample was adulterated as it contained synthetic Coal Tar Dye (Tarterzine). On receipt of the said Certificate the trial Magistrate converted the case from summary trial to a warrant case trial. After examining three witnesses for the prosecution the trial Magistrate framed a charge against the accused on 10.3.1997. The material portion of the charge reads thus:
"Whereas on 15.4.1996 at 2 p.m. Food Inspector had purchased 750 gms of Toor Dal exposed for sale in your shop in a bag for Rs. 21/- and when it was sent for analysis to the Central Food Laboratory it was found that the Toor Dal purchased from you was below standard and had contained synthetic colour and was adulterated as revealed from examination of prosecution witnesses and records and your act is an offence punishable under S. 2(1- A)(a)(h); 7(i) read with 16(1-A)(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and that you are to be tried for the aforesaid offence before this Court".
5. Respondent filed a revision before the High Court in challenge of the order framing charge. The counsel for respondent contended before the High Court that no such charge could be framed since a new offence had been revealed by the Certificate of the Director of Central Food Laboratory. He also contended, alternatively, that when the Report of the Public Analyst was found to be wrong the only course open to the court was to acquit the accused because the complaint was based on that Report. Lastly, it was contended that the complainant had not obtained sanction under S. 20 of the Act on the strength of the new facts revealed in the Certificate issued by the Director of Central Food Laboratory and hence a fresh sanction is necessary for proceeding with the case.
6. Learned Single Judge did not accept the first set of contentions. However, lear
