Back
HARKESH MANUJA
Raj Kumar Chawla – Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Harkesh Manuja, J.
Present revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 03.03.2008 passed by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot, affirmed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot vide judgment dated 04.07.2009 upholding the conviction of the petitioner under the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, for short 'the Act'.
2. The facts of the case are that an inspection of 'Atta Chaki' situated at Shri Bhagat Singh Marg, Kotkapura, being allegedly run by the petitioner was carried out on 12.01.2004 by the Food Inspector along with other officials. Upon service of notice in Form VI, 600 grams of 'Atta' which was kept for human consumption by the petitioner, was purchased as sample against payment of Rs.4.80/-, the same was divided in three equal parts of 200 grams each and one sample of 200 grams was sent to Public Analyst Punjab, Chandigarh; whereas the remaining two were deposited with the Local Health Authorities, Faridkot. Upon receipt of report Ex.PG from the Public Analyst, Punjab, Chandigarh, following deficiencies were found:-
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 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....
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 main legal point established in the judgment is that statutory provisions must be strictly interpreted, and non-compliance with procedural requirements may not necessarily invalidate the prosecut....
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....
Testing the sample in a laboratory defined under Section 23(1-A)(ee) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 is essential for a successful prosecution.
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.
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
