The burden of proving a change in the quality or standard of the sample due to natural causes or otherwise during storage is upon the accused.

Headnote:
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act - Sale of insect infested coriander seeds - S. 16(i)(a) read with Ss. 7(i) and 2(i-a)(f) - A.05.08 of Appendix B to the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules - The court found the sample to be insect infested and unfit for human consumption, and the accused guilty under the Act. The court rejected the defense plea that the insect infestation and increase in the quantity of insect damaged seeds might have occurred on account of the time-lag between the date of sampling and the date of analysis. The court held that the mere presence of living insects at the time of analysis was sufficient to attract the definition of adulterated under S. 2(i-a)(f) of the Act. The court also emphasized that the burden of proving a change in the quality or standard of the sample due to natural causes or otherwise during storage is upon the accused. The conviction was set aside and the case remanded for disposal afresh.
Fact of the Case:

The revision-petitioner was prosecuted under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act for sale of insect infested coriander seeds in his grocery shop. The petitioner was convicted under Section 16(i)(a) read with Ss. 7(i) and 2(i-a)(f) of the Act and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-. The appeal preferred was dismissed by the Sessions Judge.
Finding of the Court:

The court found the sample to be insect infested and unfit for human consumption, and the accused guilty under the Act. The court rejected the defense plea that the insect infestation and increase in the quantity of insect damaged seeds might have occurred on account of the time-lag between the date of sampling and the date of analysis. The court held that the mere presence of living insects at the time of analysis was sufficient to attract the definition of adulterated under S. 2(i-a)(f) of the Act. The court also emphasized that the burden of proving a change in the quality or standard of the sample due to natural causes or otherwise during storage is upon the accused.
Issues: The main issue was whether the sample of coriander seeds was insect infested and unfit for human consumption at the time of sale, and whether the accused should be given the benefit of doubt due to the time-lag between the date of sampling and the date of analysis.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the mere presence of living insects at the time of analysis was sufficient to attract the definition of adulterated under S. 2(i-a)(f) of the Act. The court also emphasized that the burden of proving a change in the quality or standard of the sample due to natural causes or otherwise during storage is upon the accused.
Final Decision: The conviction was set aside and the case remanded for disposal afresh.

Judgment :-

FATHIMA BEEVI, J.

The revision-petitioner was prosecuted under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 as amended in 1976 (shortly, the Act) for sale of insect infested coriander seeds in his grocery shop. The petitioner was convicted under Section 16(i)(a) read with Ss. 7(i) and 2(i-a)(f) of the Act and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-. The appeal preferred was dismissed by the Sessions Judge.

2. In revision before this Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner relying on the Full Bench decision in Food Inspector v. Prabhakaran, 1982 Ker LT 809 : (1983 Cri LJ 81) (FB) pressed for an acquittal. It was felt that the decision in Prabhakaran's case (supra) required reconsideration. The Criminal Revision Petition has accordingly came up before us on reference.

3. The Food Inspector purchased from the petitioner 450 grams of coriander seeds for purpose of analysis, on 21-2-1980. The sample was received by the Public Analyst on 6-3-1980. In Ext. P6, the report dt. 21-3-1980, the Public Analyst declared that the sample was insect infested and unfit for human consumption, it contained 10.3% by weight of extraneous matter including insect damaged grains, the insect damaged matter was 7.1% by weight and the sample was therefore adulterated.

4. The complaint was instituted before the court on 8-5-1980. The sample part kept by the Local (Health) Authority was got analysed by the Central Food Laboratory on the application of the accused under Section 13(2) of the Act. The Director received the sample on 14-7-1980. Ext. D1 certificate dt. 25-5-1980 issued by the Director read :

"1. Physical appearance : coriander whole with insect damaged units in prominence. Heavily infested with both live and dead insects identified as stegobium pancium.

2. Proportion of extraneous matter; including insect damaged seeds 17.5% by weight

3. Insect damaged matter. 15.3% by weight

4. Artificial colouring matter Absent.

Opinion: The sample does not conform to the standards laid down for coriander whole under the provisions of P.F.A. Act, 1954 and rules thereof; in that

(a) Insect damaged matter exceeds the maximum specified limit of 5% by weight.

(b) Insect infested."

By virtue of S. 13(3) of the Act, Ext. D1 Superseded Ext. P6.

5. The statutory authority has prescribed standards for coriander in A.05.08 of Appendix B to the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules (shortly, the Rules). The relevant standards are :

"The proportion of extraneous matter including dust, dirt, stones, lumps of earth, chaff, stalk, stem or straw, edible seeds of fruits other than coriander and insect damaged seeds shall not exceed 8.0 per cent by weight. The amount of insect damaged matter shall not exceed 5 per cent by weight."

6. On the evidence, the trial court found that the sample was taken and the result of the analysis obtained in compliance with the requirements under the Act and the Rules. The court accepted Ext. D1 certificate as to the standard of the food sample. As the quantity of insect damaged seeds exceeded the prescribed limit of 5% by weight and the sample was insect infested, the article of food sold was found to be adulterated and the accused guilty under the Act. The learned Sessions Judge agreed with the findings of the trial court and dismissed the appeal.

7. Both the trial court as well as the appellate court rejected the defence plea that the insect infestation and the increase in the quantity of insect damaged seeds might have occurred on account of the time-lag that intervened between the date of sampling and the date of analysis and that the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt. The evidence of defence witness was treated as not helpful to show that the number of insects or the percentage of insect damaged seeds in the sample could have increased after sale. The view taken by the lower courts was that there was no defect in sampling or analysis, the court is to be guided by the certificate of the Director of Central Food La

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1987 Supreme(Ker) 523

The burden of proving a change in the quality or standard of the sample due to natural causes or otherwise during storage is upon the accused.

Cases Referred (2)