Back
2018 Supreme(All) 2328
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
J.J. MUNIR, J.
Jugul Kishore – Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. – Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 254 of 1990
Decided on : 12-10-2018
For the Revisionist : U.K. Saxena, adv
The judgment established the importance of proving the actual receipt of notices and reports under Section 13(2) of the Act and clarified the requirements for containers used for samples under Rule 14.
Headnote:
Food Adulteration - Compliance with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Section 7, Section 16, Rule 14 - The court discussed the compliance with Section 13(2) of the Act and Rule 14 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. The judgment highlighted the mandatory requirements of Section 13(2) and the manner of sending samples for analysis under Rule 14. The court emphasized the need for positive evidence of service and the requirement to inform the accused of their right to have the sample analyzed by the Central Food Laboratory. The judgment also addressed the definition of 'other suitable containers' under Rule 14 and the necessity for containers to prevent leakage, evaporation, and moisture entry.
Fact of the Case:
The Food Inspector collected a sample of Khowa from the revisionist for analysis. The revisionist was convicted under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, based on the analysis report. The revisionist appealed the conviction, arguing non-compliance with Section 13(2) and violation of Rule 14 of the Rules.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no good compliance with Section 13(2) of the Act due to the prosecution's failure to establish the actual receipt of the notice and report by the revisionist. However, the court held that the prosecution did inform the revisionist of their statutory right under Section 13(2). The court also ruled that the polythene bag used for the sample did not conform to the definition of 'other suitable containers' under Rule 14, thereby vitiating the prosecution.
Issues: The issues included the compliance with Section 13(2) of the Act, the prosecution's obligation to prove the actual receipt of the notice and report, and the suitability of the container used for the sample under Rule 14.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the mandatory requirements of Section 13(2) and the need for positive evidence of service. It also clarified the definition of 'other suitable containers' under Rule 14 and the necessity for containers to prevent leakage, evaporation, and moisture entry.
Final Decision: The revisionist's conviction was set aside, and the revisionist was acquitted.
JUDGMENT :
J.J. Munir, J.
1. This Criminal Revision is directed against a judgment and order of Sri D.R. Singh, the then Sessions Judge, Jalaun at Orai, dated 08.02.1990, dismissing Criminal Appeal no.36 of 1989, and, affirming a judgment and order of Sri Guru Sharan Srivastava, the then Judicial Magistrate, Jalaun at Orai, dated 15.07.1989 passed in Criminal Case no.197 of 1986, convicting the revisionist under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, and, sentencing him to six months' RI and a fine of Rs.1000/-; in default, to undergo a further term of three months' imprisonment.
2. The facts giving rise to the present revision are that the then Food Inspector, Chiraiya Salempur, one R.R. Bhatt, checked at mid day, on 22.01.1984 the wares displayed for sale at the Bus Station, Jalaun, by the revisionist. The food item displayed for sale was Khowa, carried in 4 – 5 containers. The Inspector disclosed his identity and made inquiries about the article of food offered for sale. He asked the revisionist to give him 50 grams of Khowa for the price of it, to be utilized as a sample for analysis. A notice for the purpose was served in the presence of witnesses. This notice is marked as Ex. Ka-1. Signatures of the witnesses, as well as the revisionist, were secured on the relevant documents. Rupees nine were paid in price of the Khowa collected as sample, to be sent to the Public Analyst, and, for the money paid, a receipt was obtained from the revisionist, that is marked as Ex. Ka-2.
3. The article of food was divided, into three equal parts. Each of the parts were kept, in dry and clean polythene bags. Twenty drops of formalin, with a strength of 40%, were added to each bag of the sampled Khowa, whereon a label was pasted and signatures of the revisionist obtained. The Food Inspector also signed each of the labels. Code slip issued by the Chief Medical Officer was also pasted according to Rules, in Form – VII, and, six copies were drawn up and tagged to each bag. One of such duly sealed bags was sent by registered parcel on 23.01.1984, to the Public Analyst. Form VII, one in number, was sent separately with the specimen seal the same day to the Public Analyst, a copy of which is Ex. Ka-3. A report from the Public Analyst dated 28.02.1984 was received, to the effect that the milk fat in the article was 5.6%, which is below the prescribed limit by 20%.
4. Upon going through the report, the Food Inspector submitted his own report. The report of the Public Analyst was marked as Ex. Ka-4. The Food Inspector submitted his report dated 04.04.1984, along with all relevant papers to the Chief Medical Officer, for the according of his sanction. The report of the Food Inspector is marked as Ex. Ka-5. The Chief Medical Officer on going through the documents granted sanction through his memo dated 06.04.1984, that is marked as Ex. Ka-6. A challan report was drawn up, on 09.04.1984. A notice under Section 13(2) of the Act was drawn up on 12.04.1984, and, it was sent along with a copy of the report of the Public Analyst, for dispatch. In due course, it was dispatched to the revisionist under registered post.
5. The learned Magistrate summoned the revisionist, and, charged him under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Food Adulteration Act, and, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'. The accused denied the charge and claimed to be tried.
6. The prosecution examined the Food Inspector, R.R. Bhatt, PW-1, Food Clerk, S.C. Dwivedi, PW-2, and, the Dispatch Clerk, Mahatam Singh, PW-3.
7. The revisionist stated about the prosecution case, that he was implicated falsely due to enmity. He filed a copy of the judgment and the statement of Food Inspector, R.R. Bhatt in Criminal Case no.954 of 1984, State vs. Rajendra Prasad.
8. The learned Magistrate after hearing parties, and, looking into evidence available on record held the revisionist guilty, convicted and sentenced him to a term of six months' RI and imposed a fine of Rs
