Back
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH
JASJIT SINGH BEDI
Union Territory of Chandigarh – Appellant
Versus
Jagdish Prashad – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Jasjit Singh Bedi, J.
1. The present application under Section 378(3) of Cr.P.C. has been filed for grant of leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 21.08.2008 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh.
2. The instant complaint came to be instituted on 28.02.2001. The accused came to be acquitted vide judgment dated 21.08.2008. The present application for the grant of leave to appeal was filed on 24.05.2010. The matter has come up for final hearing now after 25 years of the institution of the complaint.
3. The brief facts of this case are that Sh. Sukhwinder Singh, Food Inspector on 22.12.2000 at about 7.00 a.m. intercepted a three wheeler bearing No.PB-08-X-7164 of accused Jagdish Prashad and found in his possession 20 sealed packs of Mrs. Bector's Cremica premium sandwich bread. He associated Pachnarain s/o Ram Kishore r/o House 3004, Sector-19/D, Chandigarh, as a witness to watch the proceedings initiated by him while taking a sample of Mrs. Bector's Cremica premium sandwich bread from the accused who also put his signatures on the documents prepared by him at the spot as an attesting witness.
4. The Food Inspector purchased three sealed pack of
Conviction upheld for selling adulterated food, emphasizing mandatory health standards and procedural compliance in food safety regulations.
The failure to comply with mandatory sampling procedures under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act raises reasonable doubt and undermines the prosecution's case.
The court affirmed that the sale of food to a Food Inspector constitutes a defined 'sale' under the act, regardless of whether the food item is sold as such or used in preparation for another food pr....
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....
Procedural non-compliance does not warrant acquittal unless it results in demonstrable prejudice; the evidence confirmed the adulteration of food.
Compliance with mandatory sampling protocols is crucial under food safety laws; lapses in procedure undermine prosecution's burden of proof, potentially leading to acquittal.
The delay in filing the complaint and the delay in sending the second sample to the Central Food Laboratory were fatal to the case of the prosecution, leading to the acquittal of the accused.
The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act does not apply to food products exclusively manufactured for export, and the initiation of prosecution in such cases is invalid.
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
