SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1983 Supreme(HP) 23

High Court Of Himachal Pradesh
V.D.MISRA
STATE OF H.P. - Appellant
Versus
THAKUR DASS - Respondent
Criminal Appeals Nos.54, 60, 29, 76 and 77 of 1982
Decided On : 06/22/1983

Advocates Appeared:
L.S. Panta, Dy. Advocate General, for Appellant:Om Prakash Sharma, Vice Shri Chhabil Dass, for Respondents.

Rule 9-A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules is directory and not mandatory. Substantial compliance with the rule is sufficient, and mere delay in sending a copy of the Public Analyst's report to the accused does not entitle them to acquittal unless prejudice is caused.

Headnote:

PREVENTION OF FOOD ADULTERATION RULES - MANDATORY OR DIRECTORY - SCOPE AND APPLICABILITY - INTERPRETATION OF VARIOUS PROVISIONS - EFFECT ON COURT'S DECISION - ANALYSIS OF CASE LAW - FINDINGS OF COURT - ISSUES FRAMED - RATIO DECIDENDI - FINAL DECISION.

Fact of the Case:

In a series of appeals, the question of whether Rule 9-A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules (Rules) is directory or mandatory arose. Rule 9-A mandates that the Local (Health) Authority forward a copy of the Public Analyst's report to the person from whom the sample was taken and to any person whose name, address, and particulars have been disclosed under Section 14-A of the Act, immediately after the institution of prosecution.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that Rule 9-A is not mandatory but directory. The primary purpose of the rule is to ensure that a vendor-accused does not lose the right to have the sample of food analyzed by the Director of Central Food Laboratory due to the fault of the prosecution. The court emphasized that substantial compliance with the rule is sufficient, and mere delay in sending a copy of the report does not entitle the accused to acquittal unless prejudice is caused.

Issues: 1. Whether Rule 9-A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules is mandatory or directory? 2. What is the scope and applicability of Rule 9-A? 3. How should various provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and Rules be interpreted? 4. What effect do these interpretations have on the court's decision? 5. What are the key legal principles established in the judgment?

Ratio Decidendi: The court analyzed various provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and Rules, including Sections 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, and 14-A, as well as Rules 9 and 18. The court also considered relevant case law and precedents. Based on this analysis, the court concluded that Rule 9-A is directory and not mandatory. The court reasoned that the main objective of the rule is to prevent prejudice to the accused's right to have the sample analyzed by the Director of Central Food Laboratory. Therefore, substantial compliance with the rule is sufficient, and mere delay in sending a copy of the report does not automatically entitle the accused to acquittal.

Final Decision: The court allowed the appeals and set aside the impugned orders of acquittal passed by the lower courts. The respondents were convicted under the relevant provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to varying terms of imprisonment and fines.

JUDGEMENT

1. Whether R.9-A. Pre-vention of Food Adulteration Rules (re-ferred to as the Rules) is directory or mandatory is the question which falls for decision in a number of appeals, Rule 9-A reads : "9-A. The Local (Health) Authority shall immediately after the institution of prosecution forward a copy of the re-port of the result of analysis in Form III delivered to him under sub-rule (3) of Rule 7, by registered post or by hand as may be appropriate to the person from whom the sample of the article was taken by the Food Inspector, and simultaneously also to the person, if any, whose name, address and other particu-lars have been disclosed under S.14-A of the Act: Provided that where the sample con-forms to the provisions of the Act or the Rules made thereunder and no prosecu-tion is intended under sub-sec.(2E) of S.13 of the Act, the Local (Health) Au-thority shall intimate the result to the vendor from whom the sample has been taken and also to the person, whose name, address and particulars have been disclosed under S.14-A of the Act, within 10 days from the receipt of the report from the Public Analyst."

2. The respondents have been acquit-ted by the courts below on the ground that this rule is mandatory and failure of the Local (Health) Authority to send a copy of the report of the Public Ana-lyst immediately after the institution of the prosecution must result in acquittal of the accused. In order to appreciate the ambit of this rule, it is necessary to take into consideration other provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (referred to as the Act) and the Rules.

3. Section 2 of the Act defines, amongst others, the words "adulterated" and "food. Section 3 provides for the constitution of the Central Committee for Food Standards. The Central Gov-ernment is required under S.4 to estab-lish one or more food laboratory or labo-ratories. Section 7 prohibits the manu-facture for sale or store, sell or distri-bute, amongst others, any adulterated food. Section 8 provides for the appoint-ment of a Public Analyst whereas Sec.9 makes a provision for the appointment of Food Inspectors. Section 10 defines the powers of the Food Inspectors. It empowers Food Inspector to take sam-ples of any article of food from (i) any person selling such article; (ii) any per-son who is in the course of conveying, delivering or preparing to deliver such article to a purchaser or consignee; and (iii) a consignee after delivery of any such article to him. It also empowers the Food Inspector to send the sample for analysis to the ublic Analyst for the local area within which such sample has been taken. Sub-section (7) of this ection enjoins upon the Fond Inspector to call one or more persons to be pre-sent at the time of taking samples of any article of food. The procedure which the Food In-spector is required to follow at the time of taking the sample is laid down in Sec-tion 11. He is required amongst others, to divide the sample then and there in-to three parts and mark and seal or fasten up each part in such a manner as its nature permits and take the signa-ture or thumb impression of the person from whom the sample has been taken in such place and in such manner as has been prescribed. Where a person re-fuses to sign or put his thumb impres-sion, the Food Inspector is required to call upon one or more witnesses and take the signature or thumb impression of one or more witnesses. It is also the duty of the Food Inspector to send one of the parts of the sample for analysis to the Public Analyst under intimation to the Local (Health) Authority and send the remaining two parts to the Local (Health) Authority. Sub-sec.(3) provides that "the Food Inspector shall by imme-diately succeeding working day, send a sample of the article of food or adult-erant or both, as the case may be, in accordance with the rules prescribed for sampling to the public analyst for the local area concerned. Section 13 relates to the report of the Public Analyst.












































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top