Compliance with mandatory sampling protocols is crucial under food safety laws; lapses in procedure undermine prosecution's burden of proof, potentially leading to acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.

1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 01.5.2014, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Shimla (learned Appellate Court), vide which the judgment of conviction dated 20.03.2012 and order of sentence dated 31.03.2012 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class-II, Shimla (learned Trial Court) were set aside. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.)

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the complainant, LD Thakur Food Inspector (PW2), filed a complaint against the accused Sunil Kumar and M/s Usha Trading Company for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 16 (1) (a) (1) read with Section 7 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (PFA Act). It was asserted that the complainant inspected the premises of Usha Trading Company on 4th March 2002 at about 2 PM and found Sunil Kumar conducting the shop's business. Sunil Kumar had two 15- litre plastic jars of Ricela, refined rice bran oil, in his shop for sale to the general public. The food inspector issued a notice (Ex.PW2/A) to him, declaring his intention to take a sample of the oil for analysis. The complainant purchased 375 ml of Rice Bran Oil for Rs. 10 as a sample for analysis. The oil was taken into a neat, clean and dry jug and was divided into three equal parts of 125 ml each. Each part was put into three neat, clean and dry bottles. The bottles were labelled and wrapped in thick paper separately. A paper slip bearing the code and serial number of the Local Health Authority (LHA), Municipal Corporation (MC) Shimla S-II/2511 and signed by the LHA was affixed with gum from top to bottom on each of the bottles. The signatures of the accused were taken in such a manner that they covered the paper slip and wrapper. The bottles were fastened with strong thread and sealed with sealing wax in such a manner that all the knots were covered by the sealing wax. Sanjeev Goswami (PW5) and Charan Dass (PW1) witnessed the proceedings of sealing. A Panchama (Ex.PW2/C) was prepared, which was signed by witnesses, the accused and the Food Inspector. One part of the sample was sent to a public analyst, Kandaghat, along with Form VII (Ex.PW2/D), in a sealed packet through Shri Charan Das. A copy of form VII (Ex.PW2/E), along with the seal impression, was sent separately in a sealed letter to the public analyst, Kandaghat, through Shri Charan Dass under intimation to the LHA MC, Shimla. The two remaining parts of the sample, along with two copies of form VII, were deposited with LHA MC, Shimla, in a sealed packet for record under intimation (Ex.PW2/F). The public analyst found that the acid value of the contents of the sample was 0.66 against the maximum prescribed standard of 0.5, and the sample was adulterated. He issued the report (Ex.PW2/G). This report was forwarded to the Food Inspector by the LHA vide letter dated 16 April 2002 (Ex.PW2/H). The complainant filed an application (Ex.PW2/J) before the Chief Medical Officer (CMO), Shimla, seeking consent to launch the prosecution. CMO went through the documents and issued the written consent (Ex.PW2/K). The Food Inspector filed a complaint before the learned Trial Court and intimated the LHA vide letter (Ex. PW4/A). LHA sent a notice (Ex. PW4/B) to the accused by post and obtained postal receipts (Ex. PW4/C and Ex. PW4/D).

3. Learned Trial Court found sufficient reasons to summon the accused. When the accus