The court confirmed the conviction based on compliance with food safety regulations, determining specific procedural requirements were mandatory, while others were directory, influencing the admissibility of evidence without breaching the accused's rights.

1. This is an appeal filed by the appellant one Gela Hira Rabari against the judgement and order of his conviction and sentence passed by the learned City Magistrate, 6th Court, Ahmedabad, in Criminal Case No. 228 of 1966. The conviction is under S.16(1)(a)(i) read with S.7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (37 of 1954) for the accused having on the morning of December 31, 1965 at 9.30 a.m. sold to the complainant Food Inspector of the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation 700 M. litre of cow's milk for 0.56 Paise, which, on analysis, was found to be adulterated. The offence was committed near the station of Maninagar in Ahmedabad. The accused - appellant has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven months.

2 - 3. The prosecution case as is revealed from the evidence of the Food Inspector Shantilal Vidayashankar Pandya P.W. 1 Ex. 2 is that on the morning of December 31, 1965 at about 9-30 a.m., while he was standing near Maninagar with his peon Ahmad, he had seen the accused going with the milk pot containing about one maund of milk. He called one Bhagwandas to be present at the time of his taking the sample and then asked the accused to stop. He enquired of the accused the quality and usual rate of the milk. The accused told him that it was cow's milk and quoted the rate at 0.08 Paise per 100 ml. He then purchased 700 ml. of milk from the accused on payment of 00.56 Paise as its cost and informed him that he was a food inspector and the purpose of his taking the milk was to get it analysed by the public analyst. He served upon the accused a notice in the prescribed Form VI under R.12 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, and he took the thumb impression of the accused on the original and gave him the carbon copy. He then separated the milk (sample) in three dry clean bottles and added formalin as a preservative and then got the bottles sealed and labelled. The labels were signed by him and the panchas. He then wrapped each bottle separately in a thick paper and secured the paper cover by means of a strong twine and sealed it. He and the panchas signed the wrappers. He then delivered one of the parts to the accused who gave the receipt Ex. 4. He then sent the sample to the public analyst along with the memo and a specimen impression of the seal. The report of the public analyst D.G. Vyas Ex. 5 dated January 24, 1966, stating that the sample of milk which was caused to be analysed by him contained 3.5% of fat, 7.3% of solids other than milk fat and addition of 14% of water was received by the food inspector. He then obtained the necessary sanction to prosecute the accused, on receipt of which he instituted the complaint against the accused on May 17, 1966.
 xxxx xxxx xxxx

4. Mr. P.D. Desai, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant - accused, has contended before me;
(1) That no satisfactory evidence was led to show that the sample in question was taken from the appellant.
(2) That the prosecution evidence revealed that there was scope that the sample taken from the appellant could have been tampered with and as such, there was no guarantee that the appellant had adulterated the sample.
(3) That there was no evidence that formalin of requisite strength and quantity was added to the sample in question.
(4) That R.7, R.18, R.19 and R.20 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, were mandatory rules and were not complied with in the case.
(5) That even if R.19 and R.20 are held to be directory, the report of the public analyst was inadmissible in evidence having regard to the definition of "sample" in S.2(xiv) of the Act read with R.19 and R.20 since the sample of milk was not obtained in accordance with the Act and the Rules.
(6) That there was inordinate delay in filing the complaint which had caused prejudice to the accused and vitiates the trial.
(7) That, in any event, the sentence was excessi