Single Judge quashed prosecution for selling adulterated black pepper held out of time for re-analysis by Central Food Laboratory, noting departmental slackness, and remanded compliance of sample forwarding.
Prosecution quashed and set aside; Criminal application allowed; Rule made absolute.
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.
apl578-12.sxw
1/4
Pvr
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION U/S.482 NO.578 OF 2012
1.Mr.Noel Noval Tata & Ors. …Applicants.
versus
1.The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents
Mr.Ankit Virmani i/b. Wadia Ghandy & Co., for Applicants. Mr.S.S.Pednekar, APP for State.
CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATED : 7th December, 2012
P.C. :
Rule returnable forthwith Heard finally, by consent. The respondent no.2 Food Inspector filed complaint R.C.C.no.154 of 2011 on 6.6.2011 against the applicants-Directors of M/s.Star Bazar situated at Thane (West) as accused no.2. The charge was, storing for sale and selling adulterated food article Black Pepper (whole) in contravention of Section 7(i) read with Section 2(ia)(a), 2(ia)(m) and 2(ia)(h) punishable under Section 16 read with Section 17 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act,1954.
apl578-12.sxw
2/4
Pvr
by report dated 23.10.2010 informed that the sample was in a fit condition for analysis and it was accordingly analysed on 18.10.2010 to 22.10.2010 and the result was, “There was no extraneous matter, Light berries was 1.13; Pinheads on broken berries was 0.17; Bulk Density (gms/litre) was 52.11; Moisture was 4.0; Total ash on dry basis was 4.06; non-volatile Ether Extract on dry basis was 7.18; Volatile oil Content on dry basis was 2.86; Insect Damaged matter (% by wt.) was Nil; Test for Mineral oil was positive. According to the Analyst, the test for mineral oil should have been negative and he opined that the sample does not conform to the standards of Pepper Black Whole as per the P.F.A. Rules,1955. Unfortunately, the analyst did not inform that which of the items referred above was injurious to the health or was not in conformity with the article.
apl578-12.sxw
3/4
Pvr
that the shelf value of the black pepper comes to an end roughly after six months. In the said case after 16 months, the complaint was filed. In the case at hand, it is unfortunate that even after more than one year the sample was not sent for analysis which is a vital right to which the applicant was entitled to. The slackness demonstrated by the complainant in discharging obligation, cannot be encouraged at the cost of the applicants facing prosecution for the accusation under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act,1954.
“ Thus the Food and Drugs Department in the State of Maharashtra has wholly frustrated the central legislation by wasting huge public money by their acts of omissions and commissions. I have already pointed out in details in para 7, 8, 9, 19, 20 & 21 the acts of omissions and commissions on the part of the officers of the department and I clearly find that the officers of the Food and Drugs Department in these cases who are public servants have disobeyed the law with intention to cause injury by their acts of omissions and commissions and thus they have committed offence punishable under Section 166 of Indian Penal Code. Since the offence is non-cognizable, this Court directs the Secretary, Food and Drugs Department, Govt. of Maharashtra, to identify the concerned officers responsible for the acts of omissions and commissions in all these cases and cause filing of private complaint for the offence punishable under section 166 of Indian Penal Code against them in the court of law, and report compliance about filing
apl578-12.sxw
4/4
Pvr
thereof to this Court on or before 31.7.2010.”
Thereafter, he had directed in the order, the State Government to take action against the erring officials. The State carried the matter before the Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of “State of Maharashtra Vs. Shivkumar @ Shiwalamal N.Chugwani, (2011(1) Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases 41)” has observed thus:-
“ We have heard learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner.
In the light of this legal position, the prosecution initiated against the applicants calls for interference. It is accordingly quashed and set aside. Criminal application is allowed. Rule is made absolute accordingly.
(K.U.CHANDIWAL, J.)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the prosecution against the applicants for storing and selling adulterated black pepper should be quashed given the failure of the complainant to send the sample for re-analysis as directed by
Whether the slackness of the Food and Drugs Department in delaying the analysis of the sample frustrates the right of the accused under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.
Whether the prosecution, initiated despite the failure to comply with the statutory direction for re-analysis, calls for interference under Section 482 CrPC.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Criminal Application no.836 of 2011 decided on January 5, 2012Referred¶25
Criminal application no.3439 of 2006Referred¶27
State of Maharashtra Vs. Shivkumar @ Shiwalamal N.ChugwaniReferred¶33
State of Maharashtra Vs. Shivkumar @ Shiwalamal N.Chugwani, (2011(1) Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases 41)
5 provisions across 3 enactments
Mr.Noel Noval Tata & Ors.
The State of Maharashtra & Anr.
K.U.CHANDIWAL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
