Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT, J.
Mohan Lal S/o Shri Chhoga Ji – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 4417 of 2017
Decided on : 11-07-2024
PUBLIC HEALTH - FOOD ADULTERATION - ACT 34 OF 1976, SECTION 13 - The court discussed the mandatory requirements of Section 13 of the Food Safety Act, emphasizing the necessity for the Local (Health) Authority to serve a copy of the Public Analyst's report to the accused. The court interpreted that failure to properly serve the report undermines the accused's right to challenge the findings, thus impacting the validity of the prosecution's case. The court concluded that mere dispatch of the report is insufficient, and the prosecution's failure to comply with these provisions led to the reversal of the conviction.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the prosecution of an individual for food adulteration based on a report from a Public Analyst. The Local (Health) Authority was required to serve the report to the accused, allowing them the opportunity to challenge the findings by applying for a re-analysis at the Central Food Laboratory.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution did not comply with the mandatory requirement of serving the report to the accused as stipulated in Section 13(2) of the Food Safety Act. The evidence presented only demonstrated dispatch, not proper service, which violated the accused's rights.
Issues: Whether the prosecution complied with the mandatory requirements of serving the Public Analyst's report to the accused, and whether the failure to do so affected the validity of the conviction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the failure to serve the report on the accused as required by Section 13(2) of the Food Safety Act constituted a significant procedural error, undermining the accused's right to defend themselves and challenge the report, thus invalidating the conviction.
Final Decision: The court reversed the conviction and sentence of the appellant due to the prosecution's failure to comply with the mandatory service requirements of the Public Analyst's report.
JUDGMENT :
YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT, J.
HINDI IMAGE
(2) On receipt of the report of the result of the analysis under sub-section (1) to the effect that the article of food is adulterated, the Local (Health) Authority shall, after the institution of prosecution against the persons from whom the sample of the article of food was taken and the person, if any, whose name, address and other particulars have been disclosed under section 14-A, forward, in such manner as may be prescribed, a copy of the report of the result of the analysis to such person or persons, as the case may be, informing such person or persons that if it is so desired, either or both of them may make an application to the Court within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of the copy of the report to get the sample of the article of food kept by the Local (Health) Authority analysed by the Central Food Laboratory.
(2-A) When an application is made to the Court under sub-section (2), the Court shall require the Local (Health) Authority to forward the part or parts of the sample kept by the said Authority and upon such requisition being made, the said Authority shall forward the part or parts of the sample to the Court within a period of five days from the date of receipt of such requisition.
(2-B) On receipt of the part or parts of the sample from the Local (Health) Authority under sub-section (2-A), the Court shall first ascertain that the mark and seal or fastening as provided in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 11 are intact and the signature or thumb-impression, as the case may be, is not tampered with, and despatch the part or, as the case may be, one of the parts of the sample under its own seal to the Director of the Central Food Laboratory who shall thereupon send a certificate to the Court in the prescribed form within one month from the date of receipt of the part of the sample specifying the result of the analysis.
(2-C) Where two parts of the sample have been sent to the Court and only one part of the sample has been sent by the Court to the Director of the Central Food Laboratory under sub-section (2-B), the Court shall, as soon as practicable, return the remaining part to the Local (Health) Authority and that Authority shall destroy that part after the certificate from the Director of the Central Food Laboratory has been received by the Court:
Provided that where the part of the sample sent by the Court to the Director of the Central Food Laboratory is lost or damaged, the Court shall require the Local (Health) Authority to forward the part of the sample, if any, retained by it to the Court and on receipt thereof, the Court shall proceed in the manner provided in sub-section (2-B).
(2 -D) Until the receipt of the certificate of the result of the analysis from the Director of the Central Food Laboratory, the Court shall not continue with the proceedings pending before it in relation to the prosecution.
(2-E) If, after considering the report, if any, of the Food Inspector or otherwise, the Local (Health) Authority is of the opinion that the report delivered by the public analyst under sub-section (1) is erroneous, the said Authority shall forward one of the parts of the sample kept by it to any other public analyst for analysis and if the report of the result of the analysis of that part of the sample by that other public analyst is to the effect that the article of food is adulterated, the provisions of sub-sections (2) to (2-D) shall, so far as may be, apply.
(3) The certificate issued by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory [under sub-section (2-B)] [Substituted by Act 34 of 1976, Section 10, for " under sub-Section (2)" (w.e.f. 1-4-1976).] shall supersede the report given by the public analyst under sub-sect
The court established that compliance with procedural requirements for serving reports in food adulteration cases is essential to uphold the rights of the accused and ensure a fair trial.
Mere dispatch of report of Public Analyst to accused is not a sufficient compliance with requirement of sub-section (2) of Section 13 of PFA Act, 1954 and report must be served on accused.
The judgment established that compliance with procedural requirements, specifically the service of the Public Analyst's report, is essential for the validity of prosecution in food adulteration cases....
The court confirmed the conviction based on compliance with food safety regulations, determining specific procedural requirements were mandatory, while others were directory, influencing the admissib....
The failure to comply with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, vitiates the trial and denies the accused a fair opportunity to challenge the evidence against them.
The petitioner's failure to avail the opportunity to get the second sample analyzed from the Central Food Laboratory under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, rendered his....
When evidence from different laboratories on food adulteration conflicts, prosecution cannot proceed without clear, reliable evidence; inconsistencies create reasonable doubt for acquittal.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
