Criminal liability for food adulteration requires evidence of intent; marginal deviations due to natural causes do not justify conviction or prosecution.

ORDER :

Ravi Chirania, J.

1. By way of present criminal revision petition filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C, the petitioner has challenged the judgment dated 04.07.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Chittorgarh in Criminal Appeal No 17/2006 whereby the judgment dated 01.07.2006 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kapasana, District Chittorgarh in Criminal Case No 278/1996 was upheld. The petitioner was convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 7 and 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1954” or “the Act” for short).

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that a complaint was filed against the petitioner on 17.07.1996 stating that on 26.11.1994, Food Inspector Labh Shankar apprehended the petitioner who was carrying cow’s milk for sale. After following the requisite formalities, he purchased 750 grams of milk for Rs. 4/-. The sample was divided in two parts, and one part was sent to the Public Analyst, Udaipur. The Public Analyst’s report dated 08.12.1994 (Exhibit P-13) found the milk to be adulterated, as the Milk Solid Non-Fat (hereinafter “MSNF”) content was 6.17% against the prescribed minimum standard of 8.5%.

3. Charges under Section 7 and 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 were framed against the petitioner by the Learned Trial Court. The petitioner denied the charges, pleaded not guilty, and claimed trial.

4. During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined as many as 5 witnesses in support of the case and exhibited 18 documents in support of its case. Thereafter, statement of petitioner was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C wherein the petitioner denied the charges but no evidence was produced in defence.

5. After completion of trial, Learned Trial Judge vide the judgment dated 01.07.2006 convicted the petitioner, as noted above.

6. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment of conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Court under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, however, the same was also rejected vide the judgment dated 04.07.2009 and the judgment passed by the Trial Court was upheld.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the finding of adulteration is based merely on a marginal deviation in the MSNF content. The Public Analyst’s report records that the fat content was 4.8% as against the prescribed minimum standard of 3.5%, which is higher than the standard, while the MSNF content was 6.17% against the standard of 8.5%. It was argued that such marginal deviation, in the absence of any finding of added water or addition/presence of any foreign substance, ought not to result in criminal conviction.

8. It is further argued by the learned counsel that there was an inordinate and unexplained delay in filing the complaint. The sample was taken on 26.11.1994, yet the complaint was filed only on 17.07.1996, after nearly one and a half years, though the report of the Public Analyst was received on 08.12.1994. This delay, it is argued, vitiated the petitioner’s valuable statutory right under Section 13 (2) of the Act to have the second sample a