Whether accused can be acquitted in prevention of food adulteration case on the ground that report of analyst was not sent to accused within stipulated time?

Merely a production of a covering letter and the testimony of the Food Inspector will not be sufficient to prove that the report of the Analyst has been delivered to the accused. It is mandatory on the part of the authorities concerned, that the report of the Analyst should be delivered by registered post or through person within 10 days of the launching of prosecution. It is contended that the complaint was filed on 3-5-1982 and there is no evidence to establish that the report has been delivered to the respondent within 10 days from that day except the letter Exh. X-16. On a reading of Rule 9(A) it can be seen that Analyst's report should be delivered to the accused. It is not enough to prove that the report is sent by post. Rule is mandatory that the authority should see that it is delivered to the accused. Mere production of copy of covering letter will not be sufficient to prove that the report is delivered. As rightly observed by the Court below, the evidence is lacking in this case that the prosecution has failed to establish that the mandatory provision of Rule 9(A) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules has been complied with. In view of this I do not find any necessity to go into other question involved in this case.

Bombay High Court

Pimpri Chinchwad Nagarpalika vs Giriraj Chiranjilal Sharma And ... on 21 August, 1998

Equivalent citations: 1998 CriLJ 4354

Bench: T C Das

1. This is an appeal against acquittal with leave filed by the Food Inspector, Pimpri, Pune against the acquittal of the respondent by the impugned judgment dated 6-1 -1984.

2. The prosecution case was that on 18-8-1981 at about 10 a.m. the Food Inspector went to the hotel of accused No. 2. At that time the accused No. 1 was present in the hotel. After observing the formalities under Prevention of Food Adulteration Act in the presence of panch, sample of Bundi Ladu of 1500 grams were taken. After dividing into three and packed and sealed in compliance with the Rules of Food Adulteration Rules, sent sample to the Public Analyst. On the report of the Public Analyst, it was found that the ladu was adulterated. Therefore, the prosecution was launched against the respondent.

3. The Court below on examining the evidence of oral and documentary, has found that the mandatory procedure laid down under Rule 9(A) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules had not been complied with. It also found that there is a violation of Rules 16, 17(1) and 18.

4. I heard Miss Baxi for the appellant and Shri N. B. Shah for the respondent. I also examined the impugned judgment and also evidence in this case. The prosecution has sought to produce a letter written on 4-5-82 to show that the Chemical Analyst's report and the intimation regarding the prosecution has been delivered to the respondent in compliance of the Rule 9(A) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. The case of the respondent before the trial Court was that he never received the letter dated 4-5-82. None had given any intimation regarding the case, as well. Except the Food Inspector, no other evidence has been produced by the prosecution to establish that Rule 9(A) has been complied with. The lower Court has rejected the contention of the prosecution relying on this letter that there is no valid evidence to show that the letter has been delivered to the respondent in consistent with the Rule 9(A).

5. I perfectly agree with the observation made by the Court below. Merely a production of a covering letter and the testimony of the Food Inspector will not be sufficient to prove that the report of the Analyst has been delivered to the accused. It is mandatory on the part of the authorities concerned, that the report of the Analyst should be delivered by registered post or through person within 10 days of the launching of prosecution. It is contended that the complaint was filed on 3-5-1982 and there is no evidence to establish that the report has been delivered to the respondent within 10 days from that day except the letter Exh. X-16. On a reading of Rule 9(A) it can be seen that Analyst's report should be delivered to the accused. It is not enough to prove that the report is sent by post. Rule is mandatory that the authority should see that it is delivered to the accused. Mere production of copy of covering letter will not be sufficient to prove that the report is delivered. As rightly observed by the Court below, the evidence is lacking in this case that the prosecution has failed to establish that the mandatory provision of Rule 9(A) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules has been complied with. In view of this I do not find any necessity to go into other question involved in this case.

There is no merit in the appeal. The appeal therefore fails and it is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.

Print Page