The provisions of Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 are not mandatory, but non-compliance with the provision, resulting in the accused losing the right to challenge the Public Analyst report, constitutes prejudice.

Headnote:
PREVENTION OF FOOD ADULTERATION ACT, 1954 - SECTIONS 7, 13(2), 16(1)(A) - FOOD INSPECTOR - AUTHORITY TO TAKE SAMPLES - EXPLANATION TO SECTION 7 - DELAY IN FILING COMPLAINT - MANDATORY OR DIRECTORY PROVISIONS - SANCTION FOR PROSECUTION - JURISDICTION OF C.M. & H.O. - VALIDITY OF SANCTION GRANTED AFTER REFUSAL BY COLLECTOR - FOOD ARTICLES STORED FOR SALE - INTERPRETATION.
Fact of the Case:

Food Inspector inspected the premises of Rani Sati Mandir and found adulterated food items. Samples were taken and sent for analysis. Public Analyst report confirmed adulteration. Sanction for prosecution was initially refused by the Collector but later granted by the C.M. & H.O. Complaints were filed against the accused persons. Accused challenged the proceedings on various grounds, including lack of authority to take samples, delay in filing the complaint, non-compliance with Section 13(2), and validity of sanction.
Finding of the Court:

1. The explanation added to Section 7 of the Act clarifies that storing food articles for the manufacture of food for sale is deemed to be storing for sale. The food items in question were meant for sale after preparing meals, thus falling within the ambit of Section 7. 2. The delay in taking samples and filing the complaint, coupled with the possibility of insect infestation during the delay, prejudiced the accused and rendered the prosecution case weak. 3. The provisions of Section 13(2) of the Act are not mandatory. However, non-compliance with the provision, resulting in the accused losing the right to challenge the Public Analyst report, constitutes prejudice. 4. The C.M. & H.O. had the jurisdiction to grant a fresh sanction for prosecution even after the Collector's refusal. 5. The sanction granted in the name of the Food Inspector/Ex. Dy. C.M. & H.O., despite his no longer holding that position, was valid as it related to the period when he had conducted the inspection and taken the samples.
Issues: 1. Whether the Food Inspector had the authority to take samples of food items stored for the preparation of meals for sale. 2. Whether the delay in taking samples and filing the complaint, and the possibility of insect infestation during the delay, affected the prosecution case. 3. Whether the provisions of Section 13(2) of the Act are mandatory or directory, and whether non-compliance with the provision prejudiced the accused. 4. Whether the C.M. & H.O. had the jurisdiction to grant a fresh sanction for prosecution after the Collector's refusal. 5. Whether the sanction granted in the name of the Food Inspector/Ex. Dy. C.M. & H.O., despite his no longer holding that position, was valid.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The explanation added to Section 7 of the Act clarifies that storing food articles for the manufacture of food for sale is deemed to be storing for sale. The food items in question were meant for sale after preparing meals, thus falling within the ambit of Section 7. 2. The delay in taking samples and filing the complaint, coupled with the possibility of insect infestation during the delay, prejudiced the accused and rendered the prosecution case weak. 3. The provisions of Section 13(2) of the Act are not mandatory. However, non-compliance with the provision, resulting in the accused losing the right to challenge the Public Analyst report, constitutes prejudice. 4. The C.M. & H.O. had the jurisdiction to grant a fresh sanction for prosecution even after the Collector's refusal. 5. The sanction granted in the name of the Food Inspector/Ex. Dy. C.M. & H.O., despite his no longer holding that position, was valid as it related to the period when he had conducted the inspection and taken the samples.
Final Decision: The petitions were allowed, and the proceedings in all three criminal cases were quashed.

JUDGMENT

1. - All these petitions have been filed under section 482 Cr. P. C. for quashing the proceedings in criminal cases No. 15, 16, & 17 of 1979 pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhunjhunu.

2. Brief facts leading to these petitions are that Dr. Babu Lal Gupta, Food Inspector and Deputy C. M. & H. O. Jhunjhunu at the relevant time inspected the [ premises of Rani Sati Mandir, Jhunjhunu on June 24, 1976 at about 6.15 P. M. On inspection he found 20 Kg. wheat-flour (Aata), 2 Kg. chillies, 10 Kg. Besan, 20 Kg. Ghee, 10 Kg. Suji, 10 Kg. Dalda and 105 Kg. Milk-powder in the store. These goods were kept for preparation of food which used to be supplied at 3/- per head. The Food Inspector prepared a report on the spot and wanted to take samples, of Suji and milk-powder but Kanhiya Lal Manager expressed his inability to give the samples without the permission of the trustees and requested for 15 days time in this regard. The Food Inspector in these circumstances seized Suji and milk-powder and gave the same in the superdagi of Kanhiya Lal, Manager himself. The Food Inspector sub-sequnetly sent a notice by registered post on June 25, 1976 to Kanhiya Lal Agrawal requesting him to inform the time and the person who would deliver the samples with in 15 days. Thereafter the Food Inspector went on the spot on July 14, 1976 and took 600 gram of Suji and 600 grams of milk-powder byway of sample. Kanhiya Lal Agrawal however, refused to accept any price of the said commodities. The Food Inspector then put the aforesaid Suji and the milk-powder in three bottles and sealed the same. A memo of these articles was prepared on the spot which was signed by Kanhiya Lal Agrawal and other persons on the spot. One of these bottles each of Suji and milk-power was given to Kanhiya Lal Agrawal and another bottle w+s sent for examination to Public Analyst at Sikar as prescribed under Form No. 7. The Public Analyst sent his report on July 26, 1976 and found that the Suji and milk powder were adulterated as the same were insect infested. It appears that the two reports of the Public Analyst were forwarded by the C. M. & IT. O., Jhunjhunu on August 3, 1976 to Dr. B. L. Gupta, Deputy C. M. & H. O. It was mentioned in the forwarding letter that the report of the Public Analyst Sikar was sent along-with this letter and a copy of the report of the Public Analyst should be sent to the vendor within 10 days as required under rule 9 J. It was further mentioned that information may also be sent to the office of C. M. & H. O , Jhunjhunu of obtaining consent from Collector, Jhunjhunu and of filing the complaint in the court, so that action could be taken under Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (herein after referred to as "the Act"), and vendor could be informed in this regard within appropriate time. Thereafter the record shows that no consent for filing complain was given by the Collector and as such the matter remained pending at that level of Food Inspector but subsequently the powers for giving sanction were delegated to the C. M. & H. O., and sanction for filing the complaint was obtained from the C. M. and H.O. as late as February 17, 1979. In these circumstances Dr. B. L. Gupta filed three complaints in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhuajhuuu om March 3, 1979.

3. Case No. 15/79 relates to the adulteration milk-powder, case No. 16/79 relates to the adulteration found in suji and case No. 17/79 relates the complaint that the accused persons had no licence of keeping these food articles in the stock nor any board was put on the store.

4. It may also be mentioned at this stage that complaint in these cases has been filed against 10 persons out of whom Mool Chand Sharma is alleged to be servant, Kanhiya lal Agrawal as manager, 7 others as trustees of Rani Sati Mandir and 10th accused has been named as Rani Sati Mandir Jhunjhunu trust itself. Out of aforesaid 7 trustees Biharilal and Jai Narain have died during the pen

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1984 Supreme(Raj) 297

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCHN.M.Kasliwal, J.Devki Nandan & Ors. - AppellantsVersusState of Rajasthan - RespondentS.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 479 of 1983.Decided On : 20-03-1984

The provisions of Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 are not mandatory, but non-compliance with the provision, resulting in the accused losing the right to challenge the Public Analyst report, constitutes prejudice.

Cases Referred (2)

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
N.M.Kasliwal, J.
Devki Nandan & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 479 of 1983.
Decided On : 20-03-1984