1983 Supreme(Raj) 444
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
S.C.Agrawal, J.
State - Appellant
Versus
Jai Narayan and Sohanlal - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 401 and 403 of 1977.
Decided On : 9-08-1983
Advocates:
For the Appellant: A.R. Mehta, P.P.
For the Respondent:P.N. Mohnani, Advocate.
The presumption of regularity of official acts under Section 114(e) of the Evidence Act can be drawn in respect of compliance with the mandatory provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955.
Headnote:
PREVENTION OF FOOD ADULTERATION ACT - RULE 18 - PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY - OFFICIAL ACTS - SECTION 114(E) OF THE EVIDENCE ACT - APPLICABILITY - COMPLIANCE WITH MANDATORY PROVISIONS - BURDEN OF PROOF.
Fact of the Case:
In two separate cases, the respondents were charged with selling adulterated food items under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The Food Inspector had purchased samples of 'Moong Laddoos' and 'til' oil from the respondents, respectively, and sent them for chemical examination. The Public Analyst's reports confirmed that the samples were adulterated. However, the Judicial Magistrate acquitted the respondents, holding that there was non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of Rule 18 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, as the prosecution failed to provide evidence that the specimen impression of the seal used to seal the sample packets had been sent separately to the Public Analyst.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the presumption of regularity of official acts under Section 114(e) of the Evidence Act could be drawn in respect of compliance with the mandatory provisions of the Rules. The recital in the Public Analyst's report stating that the seal on the sample container tallied with the specimen impression of the seal separately sent by the Food Inspector was sufficient to presume that the specimen impression had been sent separately, and the prosecution was not required to provide further evidence to prove this.
Issues: 1. Whether the presumption of regularity of official acts under Section 114(e) of the Evidence Act can be drawn in respect of compliance with the mandatory provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. 2. Whether the recital in the Public Analyst's report stating that the seal on the sample container tallied with the specimen impression of the seal separately sent by the Food Inspector was sufficient to presume that the specimen impression had been sent separately.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The presumption of regularity of official acts under Section 114(e) of the Evidence Act can be drawn in respect of compliance with the mandatory provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. 2. The recital in the Public Analyst's report stating that the seal on the sample container tallied with the specimen impression of the seal separately sent by the Food Inspector was sufficient to presume that the specimen impression had been sent separately.
Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the State, upholding the acquittal of the respondents. However, the court also held that the trial was vitiated due to the fact that the complaint was presented and the case was conducted by an unauthorized person, namely, the Assistant Public Prosecutor, who lacked the authority to represent the Food Inspector or the Municipal Board.
JUDGMENT
1. - Both these appeals filed by the State after obtaining leave to appeal Under Section 378(iii) CrPC, raise common questions for determination and, therefore, they are disposed of by this common judgment.
2. In S.B.Cr. Appeal No. 401 of 1977, the respondent is Jainarayan who was running a sweetmeat shop at Gangapur in District Bhilwara. On 14.1.76 at 12.00 p.m. Shri Prakash Chandra, PW 1, Food Inspector, Gangapur went to the shop of the respondent and found him selling 'Moong Laddoos'. Suspecting the 'Laddoos' to be adulterated, he purchased 1.5 kg. off 'Laddoos' after paying him a sum of Rs. 15/-. The said 'Laddoos' were divided into three portions, and were placed in three separate bottles which were separately sealed in the presence of motbirs. One of the sample bottles was given to the respondent and one of the said bottles was sent to the Public Analyst, Public Health Laboratory, Ajmer, along with memorandum Ex P 5. The report Ex.P 6 received from the Public Analyst showed that the ghee in the sample of the 'Laddoos' was adulterated as it did not conform to the prescribed standard of purity. Thereupon, after obtaining necessary sanction Under Section 20 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Food Inspector filed a complaint in respect of the offence Under Section 7/16 of the Act in the Court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Gangapur. The Judicial Magistrate, by his judgment dated 6-6-77, acquitted the respondent on the view that there was non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of Rule 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules' ) in as much as there was no evidence on the record to show that the Food Inspector had sent to the Public Analyst separately the specimen impression of the seal with which the packet containing the sample had been sealed. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of the Judicial Magistrate, the State has filed this appeal before this Court after obtaining leave to appeal Under Section 378(iii), Cr. PC.
3. In S.B Criminal Appeal No. 403 of 1977, the respondent is Sohan Lal who was carrying on the business of extracting oil from oilseeds. On 27 2.76, Shri Prakash Chandra PW 1, Food Inspector, Gangapur, purchased a sample of 'til' oil from the respondent. The said sample was divided into three parts and the said parts were placed in three separate bottles which were duly sealed. One of the bottles was given to the respondent and one bottle was sent by the Food Inspector for chemical examination to the Public analyst, Public Health Laboratory, Ajmer, alongwith the memorandum Ex P 5. The report Ex. P 6 received from the Public Analyst showed that the sample of til oil was adulterated as it d d not conform to the prescribed standards of purity. Thereupon, after obtaining necessary sanction Under Section 20 of the Act, the Food Inspector filed a complaint in respect of offence Under Section 7/16 of the Act in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gangapur and the Judicial Magistrate, by his judgment dated 6.6.77, acquitted the respondent on the view that there was non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of Rule 18 of the Rules in as much as the complainant had failed to adduce any evidence to show that the specimen impression of the seal with which the packet containing the sample had been sealed had been sent separately to the Public Analyst. Hence this appeal by the State after obtaining leave to appeal Under Section 378(iii) Cr. PC.
4. The question which arises for consideration in both these appeals is as to whether the judicial Magistrate was right in holding that where was non-compliance with the provisions of Rule 18 of the Rules in the facts and circumstances of these cases Rule 18 of the Rules lays down that a copy of the memrandum (referred to in Rule 17) and specimen impression of the seal used to seal the packet shall be sent to the Public Analyst separately by regis
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
