Food Adulteration Act | Failure To Inform Accused Of Right To Get Food Sample Tested By Central Lab Vitiates Prosecution: MP High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that failure to inform an accused of the statutory right under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 to have the food sample analysed by the Central Food Laboratory vitiates the prosecution. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 220]Observing that the right is a valuable safeguard intended to enable the accused to challenge the Public Analyst's report, the Court quashed the criminal proceedings against two accused after finding that there was no material to show that the mandatory notice had been served on them.The bench of Justice Himanshu Joshi observed:"The learned Magistrate, while framing charges vide order dated 19.02.2016 (Annexure A-5), appears to have proceeded primarily on the premise that the applicants had not moved an application for examination of the sample by the Central Food Laboratory. However, before drawing such conclusion, it was incumbent upon the prosecution to establish due compliance with Section 13(2) and proper communication of the statutory right to the accused persons. In the absence of such foundational compliance, the reasoning adopted by the trial Court cannot be sustained". The development comes in a petition filed seeking quashing of the case registered under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.Per the facts of the case, a Food Inspector on July 14, 2004, inspected the pantry car of Varanasi-Pune Gyan Ganga Express and found a coriander powder that he suspected of adulteration. Therefore, he served notice in form IV and sent the sample following the prescribed protocols in the Act. Per the report, the Public Analyst showed the power to be adulterated and thus a complaint was filed against one Brahmprakash and the present applicants for manufacturing, storing, selling, or importing adulterated food under Sections 7 and 16 of the Act. The counsel appearing for the applicants claimed that, except for statements from Bharmprakash, there was no other incriminating material presented against the applicants. The applicants claimed that there was no evidence to demonstrate that they were in charge of the business of M/s RK Enterprises, which was the catering contractor. Further, they placed reliance on a partnership deed, which demonstrated that applicants 1 and 3 (Sharan Bihari Agarwal and Rahul Agarwal) were not partners in the Enterprises on the date of the inspection. The applicants argued that the procedure prescribed in Section 13(2) of the Act was not complied with. For context, Section 13(2) of the Act mandates the Local (Health) Authority to forward a copy of the report of the Public Analyst to the accused. It further mandates that the accused should be informed that if it is so desired, he can make an application to the Court within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of the copy of the report to get the sample analysed by the Central Food Laboratory.The applicant contended that the prosecution failed to establish proper service of the Public Analyst's report along with notice contemplated under Section 13(2) of the Act.The counsel for the Food Inspector argued that the complaint prima facie disclosed the commission of an offence. The counsel submitted that the applicants were shown as connected with the pantry contractor, RK Enterprises. Further, it was argued that disputes over facts, including partnership, management and responsibility for the conduct of business, are matters that would be evaluated during the trial. The court empahsized that Section 13(2) of the Act is a "valuable and substantive right" and further observed that the provision was mandatory and conferred the right upon the accused to have a counterpart sample examined by CFL. The court also noted that the certificate issued by CFL supersedes the report of the Public Analyst and is treated as conclusive evidence regarding sample quality. In the present case, the court noted that the complaint proceeded merely based on information allegedly supplied by Bhramprakash. There was no other document demonstrating the constitution of the firm or the responsibility of applications for daily affairs. The bench further held that the denial of statutory rights under Section 13(2) of the Act causes serious prejudice to the defence. The court noted that the Trial Court, while framing the charges, proceeded on the premise that the applicants did not move an application under Section 13(2) of the Act. The bench held, "However, before drawing such a conclusion, it was incumbent upon the prosecution to establish due compliance with Section 13(2) and proper communication of the statutory right to the accused persons. In the absence of such foundational compliance, the reasoning adopted by the trial Court cannot be sustained". Relying on the inherent jurisdiction of the Court under Section 482 CrPC, the court noted that continuation of criminal proceedings in this case would amount to a miscarriage of justice and therefore an inference becomes necessary. The ...

Food Adulteration Act | Failure To Inform Accused Of Right To Get Food Sample Tested By Central Lab Vitiates Prosecution: MP High Court

Jayanti Pahwa

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Jayanti Pahwa

Food Adulteration Act | Failure To Inform Accused Of Right To Get Food Sample Tested By Central Lab Vitiates Prosecution: MP High Court

Jayanti Pahwa

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Jayanti Pahwa

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers