The High Court quashed criminal proceedings under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 as the analyst report did not establish that the adulterant was injurious to health, a prerequisite for conviction.
Criminal Petition allowed; proceedings in CC No. 562 of 2007 quashed; petitioner acquitted; bail bonds cancelled.
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.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE Dr. B. SIVA SANKARA RAO
Criminal Petition No.5709 of 2017
ORDER:
Heard and perused the material on record.
The petitioner is the A.1 in C.C.No.502 of 2017 on the file of the II Addl.Judl.First Class Magistrate, Madanapalle, Chittoor district, registered for the offences punishable u/ sec. 7 and 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act,1954 (for short, ‘the Act’), it is outcome of the private complaint of the respondent/ Food Inspector taken cognizance by the learned Magistrate for the offences supra. It is also referred in the private complaint for the cognizance taken therefrom Section 16(1A)(i) of the Act punishable for the offences committed under 7(i) and (2) (ia) (j) of the Act in relation to Parley Chocolate with no shell life provided. The main contention in the quash petition is the Section 16 [(1A) and (1A)(i) which reads as follows:
(1A) If any person whether by himself or by any other person on his behalf, imports into India or manufactures for sale, or stores, sells or distributes,—
(i) any article of food which is adulterated within the meaning of any of the sub-clauses (e) to (l) (both inclusive) of clause (ia) of section 2;
What was mentioned in 16(1A)(i) among Sections 2(e) to (i) which
reads as follows:-
(e) if the article had been prepared, packed or kept under insanitary conditions whereby it has become contaminated or injurious to health;
(f) if the article consists wholly or in part of any filthy, putrid, 3[], rotten, decomposed or diseased animal or vegetable substance or is insect-infested or is otherwise unfit for human consumption; 1[], rotten, decomposed or diseased animal or vegetable substance or is insect-infested or is otherwise unfit for human consumption;"
(g) if the article is obtained from a diseased animal;
(h) if the article contains any poisonous or other ingredient which renders it injurious to health;
2
(i) if the container of the article is composed, whether wholly or in part, of any poisonous or deleterious substance which renders its contents injurious to health;
In fact, none of the ingredients above are applicable to the case on hand undisputedly.
Section 16(1A) (ii) speaks any adulterant which is injurious to health, for that section 2(j) that is applicable which speaks “ if any colouring matter other than that prescribed in respect thereof is present in the article, or if the amounts of the prescribed colouring matter which is present in the article are not within the prescribed limits of variability” . From this provision admittedly from the colouring found from the analyst report, it is adulterated one under Section 16(1A)(j) of the Act however to make it punishable it is not only the similar adulterant but also must be shown as injurious to health from what is produced from Section 16(1-A) (ii).
Once such is the case, the analyst report vis-à-vis the complaint averments no way speaks other than adulterated or injuries to health. In the absence of it, no case made out even on the face value of the legal position and factual matrix to sustain the complaint and the cognizance order.
Accordingly and in the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.562 of 2007 on the file of the II Addl.Judl.First Class Magistrate, Madanapalle, Chittoor District, are quashed. The petitioner-A.1 is acquitted. His bail bonds shall stand cancelled.
____________________________ Dr. JUSTICE B. SIVA SANKARA RAO
Date:02.11.2018 vvr
3 issues framed by the court
Whether proceedings under Sections 7 and 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 can be quashed in absence of report showing adulterant is injurious to health.
Whether Section 16(1A)(i) applies when none of the listed adulteration conditions are met.
Whether Section 16(1A)(ii)(j) requires proof that the adulterant is injurious to health to sustain conviction.
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Petitioner/A.1
Respondent/Food Inspector
Dr. B. Siva Sankara Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
