State appealed acquittal in food adulteration case. High Court dismissed appeal upholding acquittal due to mandatory breach of intimation requirement under Section 11(1)(c)(i) of PFA Act.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
AJN
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.75 OF 1996
The State of Maharashtra (At the instance of Food Inspector, Mumbai.)
... Appellant
Vs.
Jayantilal H. Veera
... Respondent
Ms. M.M. Deshmukh, A.P.P. for the State.
Mr. K.H. Parekh for the respondent.
CORAM : SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J. DATED : 17TH SEPTEMBER, 2007.
ORAL JUDGEMENT: -
judgment and order dated 15/9 / 1995 passed by the
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 46th Court,
Mazgaon, Bombay, in Case No.65/S / 1991. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Magistrate has acquitted the respondent /accused of the charges under
2
AJN
section 7(i) read with section 2(ia)(a) and 2(ia)(m) and section 7(v) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short, “the said Act”) read with section 50 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (for short, “the said Rules of 1955”) and read with Rule 5 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1962 (for short, “the said Rules of 1962”) punishable under section 16 of the said Act.
3
AJN
for the same. The complainant also gave notice to the accused in Form No.6 as well as under section 14(A) of the said Act. According to him, the said sample was divided in three equal parts and each was put in clean dry and empty glass bottles and the same were wrapped separately with brown paper and after pasting label of Local Health Authority each sample was sealed as per procedure. The complainant prepared panchanama and left the spot.
4
AJN
Authority sent Public Analyst's report to the accused as required under section 13(2) of the said Act. After all the formalities were complied with, summons came to be issued to the accused.
5
AJN
acquitted as there was a breach of mandatory provision contained in section 11(1)(c)(i) of the said Act.
to bear in mind that this is an appeal against an order of acquittal. It is well settled that if the view taken by the trial court is a reasonably possible view and the judgment of the trial court is not perverse, the superior court should not interfere with it in an appeal against acquittal by substituting its own view for it. In State of Rajasthan v. Raja Ram, (2003) 8 SCC 180 , while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, the Supreme Court has observed that generally, the order of acquittal shall not be interfered with because the presumption of innocence of the accused is further strengthened by acquittal. The Supreme Court has further observed that the golden thread which runs through
6
AJN
the web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. The Supreme Court has further clarified that the principle to be followed by the appellate court while considering the appeal against the judgment of acquittal is to interfere only when there are compelling and substantial reasons for doing so. If the impugned judgment is clearly unreasonable, it is a compelling reason for interference not otherwise. Keeping these principles in mind, I will approach the present appeal.
“11. Procedure to be followed by food inspectors. - (1) When a food inspector takes a sample of food for analysis, he shall -
| (a) | xxx | xxx | xxx |
|---|---|---|---|
| (b) | xxx | xxx | xxx |
AJN
7
(c)(i) send one of the parts for analysis to the public analyst under intimation to the Local (Health) Authority; and”
Health Authority has not received separate intimation as contemplated under section 11(1)(c)(i) of the said Act. This position has been admitted by PW-1 Ravindra Gosavi. The law in this regard is well settled by the judgments of this court. In this behalf, the learned Magistrate has rightly placed reliance on the judgment of this court in State of Maharashtra v. Raghunath Hindurao Gajbar, 1984(I) FAC 226 . In that case while dealing with somewhat similar fact situation, this court held that the requirement that one of the three samples should be sent to the Public Analyst is coupled with the requirement that the intimation of the same should be sent to the Local Authority. This court further held that inasmuch as stiff penalty is provided if the sample is found adulterated, this provision must be held to be mandatory. The manner in which the penalty should be imposed has to be prescribed and once the legislature
AJN
8
prescribes such manner the same has got to be observed strictly by the person who has been entrusted with the duty of implementation of the law by paying attention to each of the mandatory requirements prescribed by the law. This court further observed that the legislature has not made the provision for intimation to the Local Authority of certain facts an empty formality. This court observed that once this requirement is held to be mandatory and once it is found that the requirement has not been complied with, then the prosecution must fail.
9
AJN
very vocal. The requirement of giving proper intimation to the Local Health Authority by the Food Inspector after one part of the sample was sent to the Public Analyst was held to be a mandatory requirement. This court observed that there was non- compliance of the mandatory provision of section 11(1)(c)(i) of the said Act.
[SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.]
2 issues framed by the court
Whether breach of mandatory intimation requirement under Section 11(1)(c)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 renders prosecution fatal?
Whether appellate court should interfere with acquittal when statutory mandatory procedure was not followed?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Rajasthan v. Raja RamFollowed¶38
State of Rajasthan v. Raja Ram, (2003) 8 SCC 180 · Who else cites this
State of Maharashtra v. Raghunath Hindurao GajbarDistinguished¶49
State of Maharashtra v. Raghunath Hindurao Gajbar, 1984(I) FAC 226
State of Maharashtra v. Mohiddin Gaibi ChouguleDistinguished¶53
State of Maharashtra v. Mohiddin Gaibi Chougule, 2001 (2) FCA 92
The State of Maharashtra
Jayantilal H. Veera
Ranjana Desai
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
