Food Adulteration Act | Statutory Procedure For Drawing Samples Is Mandatory: Gujarat High Court Refuses To Reverse Acquittal

The Gujarat High Court has upheld the order of acquittal in a matter involving offences under Sections 2(ia)(a)(f)(m) and Section 7(1)(5) and Section 16(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The Bench comprising Dr Justice Ashokkumar Joshi found that the Sanitary Inspector while collecting the sample of soji had failed to seal the product in a wooden box and had not made three parts of the 600 grams of samples which was mandatory under Rule 14 and Sec 16(b) of the Act. The facts of the case were that in 1997, the Complainant alongwith the Panch Witness visited the premises of the Respondent-Accused where the Accused No. 1 was doing business. Upon investigation, the sample of Soji was taken and sent to the Public Analyst. The sample of Soji was also purchased and sent in three clean dry bottles which was closed sufficiently tight to prevent leakage, evaporation or entrance of moisture. The Public Analyst stated that the sample did not conform to the standards and provisions laid down under the PFA Rules, 1955. The same was challenged before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate and subsequently, the Accused was acquitted. In the instant appeal, the State contested that the Court below had erred in appreciating the report of the Public Analyst. The Court had rightly concluded that the sample was not mixed up and was not boiled. Further, Rule 14 of the Food Adulteration Act was violated and therefore, the Accused ought not to have been acquitted. Per contra, the Respondents submitted that the evidence had been rightly appreciated. Further, the mandatory provisions of sec 16(b) and Rule 14 were violated by the Inspector. Justice Joshi, firstly, observed that the scope of interference in acquittal appeal is limited as was enunciated by a catena of judgements. Secondly, where two conclusions are possible basis the evidence, the Appellate Court must not disturb the finding of the trial court. Venturing into the facts, the High Court noted that PW1 who was serving as a Sanitary Inspector was the Food Inspector at the time of his complaint had admitted that the wooden box was not sealed. He had also not divided the sample into three parts as per the provisions. Therefore, seeing the violation of Sec 16(b) and Sec 14, the Court said that the Magistrate had rightly granted the benefit of doubt to the Accused. Additionally, a PW had also turned hostile. The same PW had no knowledge of the sample, proceedings and therefore, the Prosecution had failed to provide his case independently, Court said. Accordingly, it dismissed the appeal. Case No.: R/CR.A/1500/2011 Case Title: STATE OF GUJARAT - FOR & ON BEHALF OF R N JOSHI, FOOD INSPEC v/s ILESH HIMMATLAL BHUPTANI & 3 other(s)Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 286Click Here To Read/Download Judgment

Food Adulteration Act | Statutory Procedure For Drawing Samples Is Mandatory: Gujarat High Court Refuses To Reverse Acquittal

PRIYANKA PREET

Tags