LATEST JUDGEMENT OF FOOD CASES

The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act Judgments

BY A P RANDHIR Page 1

IMPORTANT CASE LAWS

ON

THE PREVENTION

OF

FOOD ADULTERATION ACT,

1954

A P RANDHIR



1. State of Gujarat V/s. Babu Lavji Jalia 1996 Cr.L.J. 683 (Guj.) = 1996(1) GCD

411 = 1995(2) GLH 722

Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules – Rule – 14 – Compliance of – Mandatory –

duty of the prosecution to prove by leading positive evidence – that bottles were

cleaned and dried before the sample was taken by the Food Inspector – duty of the

prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that all ingredients or provisions that

are to be proved as per law and especially provisions which are mandatory in nature

have got to be proved beyond reasonable doubt – Rule – 14 clearly…. Mandatory…..

cleaned – dried – closed sufficiently tight to prevent leakage – carefully sealed – non

compliance of the provision – rule – is fatal to the prosecution.

2. 1998(1) GLR 137 State of Gujarat V/s. Gobal @ Gopal

Head Note (B) – Rule – 14 – prosecution for adulterated edible oil – Rule – 14 –

deal with manners of sending sample for analysis requiring that sample shall be taken

in clean and dry bottles – no evidence to show that material requirement of Rule 14

were complied with – Acquittal confirmed.

3. 1995(2) GLR 1099 State of Gujarat V/s. Sohanlal T. Shah & ors.

This judgment is referred in above mentioned

1998(1) GLR 137.

4. 1995(2) GLH (UJ) 24, Sudhirchandra Joshi V/s. Arvindkumar

Rule – 14 – mandatory – sample bottle were not cleaned and dried at vendor’s place

– same were delivered by the store department – Food Inspector has no information

as to when and by whom sample bottles were cleaned and dried – though stated that

instrument for taking – sample was cleaned by peon – peon is not examined –

mandatory requirement not followed – duty…not only comply…but to lead evidence

also.

5. 1999(2) GLR 1105 Gangadhar V/s. Mukeshbhai B. Shah & ors.

Rule – 14 – sample of oil taken in bottles – evidence of complainant indicating that he

has not personal knowledge whether bottles were cleaned and dried – when bottles

were shown to panch witness cork was closed – Held – accused entitled for acquittal.



Sec – 13 – Report of Public Analyst not indicating who examined the sample and

when – sample received on 3rd

June, report signed on 10th

June – following earlier

decision – Held – accused entitled for acquittal.

Report send by R.P.A.D. – delivery of the letter has to be presumed – presumption of

service.Sec. 20 – sanction letter in cyclostyled form indicating proper application of

mind – sanction valid.

6. FAC (1948-97) 1 (SC) Rameshwar Dayal V/s. State of UP

Sec. 13(2) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act- Report of the Public Analyst not

supplied to the accused – consequently be could not get his own sample examined by

the Central Food Laboratory – it is a very valuable right given to him – serious

prejudice has been caused to the accused.

7. 1993(1) GLH 250 Prithviraj V/s. State

Sec. 13(5) – Prevention of Food Adulteration Act – Rule 7 – Prevention of Food

Adulteration Rules – Report of Public Analyst with regard to adulteration – such

report admissible in evidence without examining the Analyst in Court – without

calling him as a witness.

8. 1985(2) GLR 895 Mansingh Chhajuram Yadav V/s. State

Sec. 13(2) & 16 – Act & Rules – where a sample of food was taken from a servant –

the copy of the report of the Public Analyst must also be send to the master – failure

to do so is fatal to the prosecution as against the master as also against the servant –

Article of Food must be churned or taken so as to render it homogeneous – and to

render the part a representative of the whole – delay in asking the Court to send a part

to the Central Food Laboratory should be ignored by Court.

9. 1975 PFA cases 186 (SC) Municipal Corporation V/s. Ghisaram

Sec. 13(2) – delay in filing complaint for about 7 months – effect on the right of the

respondent guaranteed u/s. 13(2) – prejudice cause to the respondent – finality &

conclusiveness of the report of the director. Even if preservative had been added it

could have been analysed successfully during the next four months only.

10. 1998(2) GLH 857, State V/s. M/s. Gurukrupa Kirana

Sec. 13(2B) – Rule 15 – when the Court forwarded the sample under its own seal, the

Court has to see only the report of the Central Food Laboratory – report of Central



Food Laboratory supersedes the report forwarded by Public Analyst – therefore no

reliance can be placed on the report forwarded by Public Analyst. Panchnama and

sample bottles bear signatures of panch, Food Inspector and the accused – merely

because panchas are not supporting the prosecution – it does not mean that the

evidence of the Food Inspector cannot be accepted – Accused held responsible for

selling adulterated turmeric powder.

11. 1995(1) PFAC 208 (A.P.) Chainsukh Tiwari V/s. Kamal Kishor

Sec. 13(2) read with Rule 9A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules – mere

production of the dispatch register in the circumstances of the case not sufficient –

even if the acknowledgment was not received back the complainant was in possession

of the postal receipt which was not produced and therefore, the Ld. Trial Magistrate

was justified in concluding that the prosecution failed to prove due compliance of

Sec. 13(2) of the Act and Rule 9A. Sec. 10(7) – the two independent witnesses in

whose presence the sample is said to have been taken, did not support the prosecution

case and the Ld. Magistrate concluded that it was not proper to accept the

uncorroborated testimony of the complainant.

12 . 1986 P.F.A.J. 590 (Kerala) Food Inspector V/s. P.N. Muthu & Co.

Rule 7(3) – Acquittal recorded on violation of this rule – Rule prescribing 45 days

time limit for delivery of report by Public Analyst to Local (Health) Authority –

sample of oil seeds case received by Public Analyst on 19-11-79, report received by

L.H.A. on 15-12-79 – Held there is no violation of Rule 7(3). Rule 9A – Sec. 13(2) –

Acquittal recorded on its violation – intimation send by R.P.A.D. – if accused not

available – no violation – in the instant case accused received it and got second

sample analysed – no violation. Rule 16(c) & (d) – violation – preparation of mahazar

on printed form – whether it violates Rule 16(c) & (d) ? – No.

Rule 17 – dividing sample in 3 parts and sending them – Magistrate acquitting for

violation of this rule – without any reasoning – whether proper – No.

Sec. 11(1)(a) – notice under – whether it ought to have been issued to all the partners

of the first accused firm ? – No.



Sec. 17 – prosecution of partners of firm – Accused No. 1 was firm – Accused No. 4

was its managing partner – Fine – Fine and sentence – Accused No. 2, 3 & 5 acquittal

– Upheld.

13 . 1981 All Indian P.F.A.J. 496 (All) Prosecution Vijaysingh V/s. State of U.P.

Sec. 7, 13(2) and 16 – Rule 9(j) – sample of milk taken from the applicant on 3-5-74

– found adulterated by the Public Analyst – the report of the Public Analyst received

by the Food Inspector on or before 16-9-74 – A copy of the report dispatched to

applicant on 17-10-74 i.e. after 10 days; the statutory period prescribed in rule 9(j) of

its receipt – applicant entitled to be acquitted on account on non-compliance of rule

9(j) by the prosecution.

14. 1981 All India P.F.A.J. 550 (Ker) P. Chochalingam V/s. Food Inspector.

Sec. 7, 13 & 16 – milk sold by the petitioners found to be adulterated by the Public

Analyst – a copy of the report of the Public Analyst sent to the petitioners on 1-11-78

– inviting their attention to Sec. 13(2) for further action – if so desired – the

petitioners received the copy of the report on 2-11-78 – the complaint was filed in one

case on 7-11-78 and in second case on 24-11-78 – the petitioners did not move the

Court to send a sample of the milk to the Central Food Laboratory for reanalysis –

conviction of the accused – not sustainable as there was a non-compliance of

mandatory provision of Sec. 13(2).

15. 1986(3) FAC 196 (Ker) Food Inspector V/s. Abdulla

Sec. 13(2B) – procedure not followed – Sec. 114(c) – all Judicial acts and official acts

have to be presumed to be regularly performed.

16. 1987(2) Cr.R.P. 158/84 (Ker) State V/s. Food Inspector

In circumstances – cannot be presumed about procedure of Sec. 13(2B) Magistrate

must discharge his plain duty.

17. 1993 (2) FAC 317 (Bom) State of Maharashtra V/s. Omprakash Agrawal

Sec. 13(2B) – Ld. Trial Judge did not follow the procedure while sending the sample

– report of the Director, Central Food Laboratory cannot be made the basis of

conviction.

18. 1988 (2) FAC 65 (Ker) Gopalan V/s. State of Kerala.

Sec. 13(2B) – about presumption.



19 , 1988(2) FAC 64 (P & H) Sohanlal V/s. State.

Sample of curd not taken according to the settled preposition of law – proper manner

and method of taking sample of curd is … that the set curd should be divided

vertically and the entire one compartment should be taken and churned and then

divided into three parts.

20 . 1996(1) FAC 110 (Orissa)Durga Behera V/s. State of Orissa

21. 1991(1) FAC 230 (Del) Sheoraj V/s. State

Rule-50 – License is granted by the Authority for sale of food and not adulterated

food – so, if he deals in article of food without a license and that article of food is

found to be adulterated, then he cannot be held guilty and convicted under both the

sub-clauses (i) & (iii).

22. 1999(1) GLR 452 State V/s. Gurukrupa Kirana

Sec. 7 and 17(4) – The Food Inspector is a public servant and is under a public duty –

His evidence cannot be treated as tainted evidence, unless some material is brought

out – So, even if, the panchas turn hostile, the evidence of a Food Inspector may be

relied upon – where an absentee partner of firm is sought to be convicted – the

ingredients of sub. Sec. (4) of Sec. 17 must be proved.

23. 1990(1) FAC 68 (H.P.) State V/s. Premchand

Sample of Milk – sample taken by the Food Inspector not made representative –

cannot basis of conviction – How to take sample of Milk – Sec. 13(2B) intendment

of….

24. 1990(1) FAC 71 (Ker) DhanRajan V/s. Food Inspector

Appendix-B – Pineapple Fruit Juice – for Fruit Juice – in A-16.01…… Accused not

guilty in that case. Rule-22A – Sec. 11(1)(b) – No violation – where the Public

Analyst or Director…. does not complained that the quantity sent is not adequate….

there is.

25. 1997(1) GCD 34 (Guj.) M.C.Bhatt V/s. Badruddin

Sample of Chilli - found to have been applied with some oil – Rule – A 05.05.01

permit edible oil content to maximum of 2 percent of weight – what was in…. this

sample – not mentioned in P.A. Report – Rule 4(4) also not complied – acquittal –

upheld.



26. 1999(1) GLH 237 Gangadhar Ramekar V/s. Mukesh B. Shah

(AIR 1975 SC 395 Delhi Municipal Corporation V/s. Kacheroomal - This is

explained in the above judgment.) Sec. 114 of Evidence Act – presumption there

under – letter sent by R.P.A.D. – returned acknowledgment bearing signature – there

would be necessary presumption about the letter is delivered – proof of signature not

necessary. Consent after application of mind.In absence of personal knowledge of

information of the complaint, as to whether the bottles in which the samples were

taken were clean or not – breach of Rule 14 – which is mandatory in nature would

vitiate the proceedings – sample wrapped in paper – merely complainant in his

evidence not used the words ‘nearly folded’ would not be sufficient to raise an

inference for breach of Rule 16(b). Report of Public Analyst – when sample not

analysed on the day which it is received – possibility of sample mixing cannot be

ruled out – when person who received the sample at laboratory not examined –

benefit would go to the accused. When the sample of edibles found perfect in outer

respect, but slightly outside the permissible limit – sample is adulterated – Report of

Public Analyst – report does not show that the sample was unfit for human

consumption – not fatal to prosecution case.

27. 1987(2) PFAC 320 (P & H) Maya Ram V/s. State

Colouring matter – microscopic test – sample of Barfi – which colour is permitted.

28. 1986 Cr.L.R. 12 (Guj.) Mansing V/s. State of Gujarat

Sample of curd – should be homogeneous and representative in content and nature –

method – how to take sample of curd.

29. 1997(3) GLH 435 Nestle India V/s. State

Report of Central Food Laboratory – neither positive nor negative because the

product could not be analysed as sample bottle was found broken – report of Central

Food Laboratory supersedes the opinion of Public Analyst – Criminal proceedings

quashed and set aside.

30. Babubhai R. Chauhan V/s. State

Date of signing of the report is different than the date of analysis of sample – benefit

of doubt. (over ruled

31. 1997(2) FAC 39 (Guj.) = 1997(1) GLR 458 Chimanlal Govindji V/s. State



Rule 9A – complaint was filed by Food Inspector against accused on 31-12-1981, the

notice, as required u/s. 9A of the Rules was sent to the accused within 10 days, in as

much as it was not sent after one month and 18 days – thus there is a clear breach

Rule 9A of the rules – the accused is also entitled to acquitted on this ground. Chilli –

microscopic test – provision for – Legislature has not approved of such test.

32. Supreme Court on Food Adulteration Cases 1948-1997 page-939 (SC)

Ahmad Dadabhai V/s. State

Sec. 2(XIII) – business not yet commenced – furniture making was in progress –

license to do business issued just one day before – it cannot be said – the accused has

commenced business and was sale adulterated oil. Rule 9A – Delay.

33. 1996(2) FAC 297 (SC) Admi. Of City of Nagpur V/s. Laxman.

Sample of Cow milk – the fat percentage is 6% as against 3.5%, which is more than

the standard prescribed for Cow Milk – the only short fall was thus S.N.F. was 7.3%

whereas – it ought to have been 8.5% - (Total) – it cannot be said that Courts below

have erred in acquitting them giving benefit of doubt to the respondents – benefit of

doubt given. Criminal Appeal No. 458/74 (Gujarat High Court) Popatlal V/s. State.

(circulated)

Liability of Transporter – not liable.

34. 1993(2) FAC 121 (Guj.) Vishnuprasad Dodiya V/s. Prop. Suresh Mohanlal

Identity of sample – what is referred to as ‘serial number’ of the sample by Food

Inspector in is evidence before Court is not the one and the same which was

forwarded to the Public Analyst and which ultimately come to be analysed – such is

the conflicting position – it is indeed difficult to connect the respondent with the

crime alleged against him. Object of Sec. 278 of Cr.P.C. – duty of the Court to read

over the deposition to each witness after his evidence is over.

35. 1997(2) GLR 1391 State V/s. Ganesh Raval

Sec. 13(2) – Rule 9A – it is mandatory- non-compliance with either provision would

result in a benefit of doubt to the accused.

36. 1987(1) FAC 290 (All) Nagar Swasthya Adhikari V/s. Balraj Yadav

Accused more than 20 years of age on the date of occurrence – Magistrate erred in

releasing the accused on probation.



37. 1996(1) FAC 236 (Guj) Shambhubhai Shankabhai V/s. Chandrakant

Rule 9A – mandatory – effect of non-compliance – relied on – Tulsiram’s case –

1989(2) FAC 146 = (1984) SCC 487 (SC) – accused acquittal – Sec. 313 – mistake

…. Document not mentioned right of accused about explanation …. Any mistake or

error (as such) – accused is entitled for acquittal.

38. 1991(1) GLR 82 Ramanbhai Prajapati V/s. State

Sec. 14, 19, 20 & 20A – A bill may operate as a warranty – where an accused

produces a bill and facts disclosed that what he sold was an article in the form which

he received – the conviction of accused is bad – the seller ought to have been put to

trial – sanction to prosecute must contain reasons – in the absence thereof it is bad.

39. 1991(2) FAC 65 (SC) State V/s. Rajeshwar Rao.

Adulterated – meaning of – if the Food or Article of food is adulterated, if it is not of

the nature, substance or quality demanded by the purchaser and sold by the seller and

is to his prejudice or contains any foreign substance in excess of its prescribed limit –

so as to effect injuriously the nature, substance or quality thereof. Sanction – it is

condition precedent – criteria – sale by whom – it does not postulate whether a person

should be the owner or a servant or a person on behalf of the owner (son of owner) –

Sec. 7 prohibits – No ‘person’ …. ‘himself or any person on his behalf’ …. Obviously

included any person like – servant – son – father or agent – liable Mensrea – mensrea

is not essential ingredient – it is a social evil.

40. 1991(2) FAC 101 (H.P.) State V/s. Dipak Sood.

Sec. 20 – sanction – sanction for cyclostyled form – not applied mind – simply

appended his signature at the end of it, there is no mention why the prosecution of the

accused is essential in public interest – it is no sanction in the eye of law – effect.

Sample of curd – not made homogeneous – the sample was divided in 3 parts and

then put in to three bottles – result – milk fat 03.00% and milk solid – not fat 8.6 –

prescribed standard milk fat 3.1 & S.N.F. 11.1% minimum. For taking the sample of

curd the proper method is that the curd should be divided vertically and the entire

component should be taken churned properly and then divided into three parts, so that

it becomes homogeneous and a representative sample – object thereof.

41. 1986 All I. P. of F.A.J. 522 (Kerala) Food Inspector V/s. C.P. Abbas.



Appendix-B & Rule 44(g) – sample of cream milk – Magistrate acquitted on the

ground that no standard prescribed in the Act – standard prescribed for cream made

from milk – order of Magistrate not correct. Presumption as to compliance of Rules

as to purchase – packing – sealing and dispatch of sample, no question put to Food

Inspector for non-compliance – acquittal – not proper.

42 1998(2) FAC 19 state V/s. Badri.

Sample of Milk – in 3 phials – mixed formalin separately – actually the foramalin

should have been mixed in the beginning itself at the time of taking sample and not

afterwards – when the sample was put in three different phials. Sec. 10(7) – sample

should be taken in presence of witness – in fact – prosecution was bound to examine

the witness to prove their signature – not examine – fatal.

43. 1980(2) GLR 26 State V/s. Keshavlal K. Patel

Sec. 16(1) – Rule 16(c) – Rules providing about the manner in which sample should

be sealed – witnesses in deposition not making out the necessary ingredients –

conviction set aside.

44. 1999 Cr.L.R. 470 (Guj.) State V/s. Kantilal Chimanlal.

Sec. 14 & 19(2) – warranty – bill & label & seals on tins suggests implied warranty –

Held – defense u/s. 19(2) is well laid – it would be undue harassment to continue

hanging sword since July 1995.

45. 1978 Cr.L.R. 474 (Mah.) State V/s. Jethalal Devshibhai.

Evidence closed by prosecution – Held it is not proper – for prosecution to suggest

that some other evidence was available for framing of charge. Power of Food

Inspector – chilly seeds not stored for sale – Held – Food Inspector not authorized to

take sample.

Chilly seeds not sold for human consumption – it cannot be said that it is an article of

food – presence of insects in article – Held it does not render it unfit for human

consumption – certificate by Public Analyst is stereotyped. Food Inspector possibly

acted bona-fide – Held – Food Inspector not to be proceeded against.

46. 1976 Cr.L.J. 336 (SC) Municipal Corporation V/s. Kacheroomal

Sec. 2(1)(f) – pression – ‘insect in fested’ – included festation even by dead insect –

73PUN – LR(D) 101 Reversed – mere insect infestation is not sufficient to hold the



article as adulterated – further proof that the article was unfit for human consumption

is a must.

47. 1985(2) FAC 88 (Bom.) Nizamuddin V/s. State

Sec. 20 – Sanction – validity. Rule 16(c) – breach of – mandatory in nature – report

of Public Analyst – vague and defective.

48 .1999(3) GLR 2220, State V/s. Bhagchand Sadhumal

Sample of chilli – 450 grams of chilli powder collected from single bulk container

and divided into three samples – Held there is no violation of Sec. 11(1)(b). Rule 7(3)

– provision directory – delay in sending report by Public Analyst to Local Health

Authority – on facts no prejudice caused to accused – trial, held – not vitiated.

Defense of warranty – Rule 12(A) – Sec. 19(2) – onus of proof lies on the accused.

Sec. 114 of Evidence Act & Sec. 27 of the General Clauses Act – R.P.A.D. returned

with endorsement ‘refused’ on fact examination of postman as witness was not

necessary. Rule 14 – Clean and dry bottles not proved beyond reasonable doubt –

acquittal confirmed. Sec. 278 of Cr.P.C. – Evidence read over to the witness – duty of

Magistrate in this regard emphasized.

49.. 1980(2) GLR 136 M.B. Risaldas V/s. Radheshyam.

Rule 22 – Rule regarding proportion of the quantity to be taken for analysis is

directory not mandatory – if Public Analyst able to analyse then merely because

quantity available was les does not result in non-compliance of the rule. Food

Inspector leading evidence that he has put quantity in clean bottles – no evidence that

the bottle were cleaned or washed in his presence – person who washed the bottles

was not examined – Held that it was not proved that the Food Inspector had proved

that the bottles were clean & dry as required under rules.

50. 1979 All I.P.F.A.J. 39 State V/s. Khacharadas

Printed panchnama – same gaps … which were filled up by Food Inspector – this is a

faree of a panchnama.

60. 1978 GLR 448 Jethalal Lallubhai V/s. Baroda Municipal Corp.

Rule 16(b) & 16(c) – manner of packing prescribed in the rule – double safeguard

laid down so that no injustice may result to accused. Rule 16(b) & (c) therefore

mandatory.



61 . Cri. Rev. Appl. 438/80, decided on 22-2-85. Manisngh C. Yadav V/s. State

Sec. 13(2) – copy of report – supply of – sample collected from servant accused No. 1

– owner is accused No. 2 – constructively liable – held copy of report of Public

Analyst be supplied to both accused – copy of notice be sent to each accused – giving

notice to one accused not sufficient compliance of Law – joint notice – sending joint

notice is not illegal.

62. 1981 GLH (NOC) 7

Rule 22 – quantity of sample – if the Public Analyst can analyse, then merely because

the quantity available was less cannot result in non-compliance with mandatory rule –

so as to lead consequential acquittal. (Analysis is material).

63 . 1992(2) FAC 214

Sec. 7 & 16 – sample of Red Chilli powder taken on analysis it was found to contain

wheat starch and non-permitted oil soluble coal tar dye of red shade – Public Analyst

has not given quantity of the same found in the sample – admittedly the wheat starch

is not injurious to health and the finding of such item will not make the item

adulterated – Public Analyst has not confirmed what was the red shade found –

acquittal.

64. 1991(1) GLR 380 Kishorkumar Patel V/s. D.B. Rao.

Primary food – black pepper is primary food – merely because a primary food does

not confirm to the prescribed standards there is no offence – It must further be proved

that foreign material which was not harmful to health.

65. 1978 Cr.L.R. 437 (Mah.) State V/s. Shamji Premji Shah

Sample analysed by Assistant – not by Public Analyst – certificate bearing as date

13th

May, when analysis carried on 9th

May – Held certificate of Public Analyst is of

no consequence and acquittal order not to be interfered.

66. 1974 Cr.L.J. 572 (Del.) Municipal Corporation V/s. Mohd. Kareem

About Misbranded Article – acquittal.

67. 1994 SCC (Cri.) 1720 (SC) Delhi Adm. V/s. Sat Sarup Sharma

Sample of Suji containing eight living meal worms and one living weevil – Public

Analyst not opinion that the sample was either insect infected or that it was unfit for

human consumption on account of presence of meal worms or that it was otherwise



unfit for human consumption – Held – requirement of Sec. 2(ia)(f) not satisfied –

order of acquittal passed by trial Court upheld – (1985) 2 SCC 589 = 1985 SCC (Cri.)

289 = State V/s. Pherumal; relied on.

68. 1980 Cr.L.R. 88 (Mah.) State V/s. Ratanshi.

Sec. 7 & 16 – Inspector bringing bogus panch before Court – Held – conduct of

Inspector is slur on Judicial Proceedings and no reliance can be placed on evidence of

Inspector.

69. 1992 Cr.L.J. 873 (P & H) State V/s. Gulsan.

Laddoos alleged to be prepared in palm oil – no standard prescribed for Laddoos –

failure of prosecution to established that accused had prepared laddoos in medium

which was not up to prescribed standards – laddoos not found unfit for human

consumption – acquittal.

70. 1997(1) GLR 458 Chimanlal V/s. State.

Rule 9A – sample of chilli – Microscope test not provided for in the Act or Rule –

percentage of husk or rise – requirement to send report of the analysis to person from

… within 7 days – sent more than one month after filing complaint – acquittal.

71. 1980 GLR 682 State V/s. Gandabhai Arjanbhai.

Sec. 10(7) – Mandatory provisions – obligatory to keep panchas present when taking

samples – presence which would be during the entire time when the process of taking

sample is in operation.

72. 1983 Cr.L.R. 546 (Mah.) State V/s. Laxmichand.

Sec. 10(7) – Evidence shows that witness was not present when sample was taken –

Held – Magistrate rightly refused to believe Food Inspector and acquitted accused.

73. 1978 Cr.L.R. 484 (Mah.) Shankarlal V/s. State.

Sec. 10(7) – panchnama – panch not independent witness – panchnama is worthless –

Held prosecution fail to prove his case – conviction set aside – Sec. 16(1)(a) – price

of shah jira Rs. 60/- to 80/- per Kg. and price of Ghus Jira Rs. 10/- per Kg. – Food

Inspector purchasing Jira at Rs. 10/- per Kg. – Held it is difficult to believe that

Inspector purchased shah Jira.

74. 1992(1) GLR 711 Prithviraj V/s. State



Sec. 10(7), 13(5), 20(1) – Law required that a panch should be called for – but it is

not an invariable rule that the panch should support the case – the report of Public

Analyst after the amendment in Act is admissible in evidence per se – the officer

granting consent need not record reasons for granting consent. (Mangilal’s case 1974

GLR 852 not applicable).

75. 1992(1) GLR 434 Chhotalal Christian V/s. Parsottam Parmar

Rule 4(4) – Even under the un-amended sub-rule it was obligatory on the Director of

Central Food Laboratory to compare the conditions of the seal on the container with

the specimen seal impression and make a note thereof – omission therein renders the

prosecution unfounded - There cannot be presumption that an official act was in fact

done.

76. 1997(3) GLR 2424 State V/s. R.D. Patel

Sec. 378 of Cr.P.C. – Appeal against accused – right of original complainant to apply

for Sepcial Leave to appeal – appeal by State – discussion thereof.

77. 1997(3) GLH 457 State V/s. Ramanbhai D. Patel

Rule 4(3) – Rule is mandatory – strict compliance is necessary – no evidence to show

that copy of the memorandum and specimen seal were send separately to Director of

Central Food Laboratory – No acknowledgment slip duly signed by the addressee i.e.

Director – Acquittal confirmed. Right to appeal of complainant in private cases.

78. 1996(1) GLH 266 = 1995(2) GLR 1528 Laxmichand V/s. State.

Rule 4(4) – Appendix B – sample of Ghee taken by Food Inspector – did not stir so as

to make it homogeneous – it is necessary to have quantity of Ghee homogeneous in

character by melting and stirred as well non-compliance of Rule-4 – Acquittal.

Seal on sample of Ghee not compared with specimen impression – non-compliance of

Rule-4 – effect.

79. 1999(2) FAC 167 (Guj.) B.C. Patel V/s. Jayhind Store.

Sec. 20A – manufacturer – impleaded – validity of – real manufacturer not impleaded

in the instant case – accused No. 4 who is not manufacturer – cannot be guilty. Sec.

14 & 19 – warranty – vendor purchased from manufacturer with warranty – Sec. 14 &

Rule-12A – Sec. 19 Vendor not guilty for sale of adulterated food.

80. 1998(2) GLH 960 State V/s. Bhagchand Sadhumal.



Sec. 11 – How to take sample of chiili powder 450 gms. – divided into three part –

Sec. 11(1)(b) are fully complied with.

Sec. 7(3) – report to be sent within 45 days by Public Analyst to the Local Health

Authority – delay in sending the same – when sample remains fit for analysis then no

prejudice can be said to have been caused to the accused – prosecution’s case cannot

be rejected on the ground of delay only – purpose of provision is avoid to delay.

Defense of warranty – Sec. 19 – when such defense is taken then the burden lies on

accused to prove that he purchased the article with written warranty and he stored it

in the same condition as he purchased – evidence of Food Inspector – panchas turn

hostile – no allegation against Food Inspector on the basis of malafide – signatures of

panchas and accused could not be denied – Food Inspector took the sample in

discharge of his duties – his evidence cannot be rejected merely because panchas turn

hostile. Sec. 13(2) copy of report of Public Analyst to be forwarded to the accused –

notice was posted as correct address – refused by accused – merely because postman

not examined it cannot be said that Sec. 13(2) is not complied with – unless rebuts -

there must be presumption about service of notice. Sec. 278 of Cr.P.C. – evidence of

each witness should be read over to witness – duty of Court – breach of this provision

is to be considered as a serious breach on part of Judicial Officer.

81. 1999(1) GLH 29 State V/s. Chandraprakash Sindhi.

Offence under the Act are antisocial crimes – affecting the health and well being of

people – Act regulated trade in food articles which are controlled by its stringent

provisions – adulteration of food has often led to large human tragedies – Court is

required to bear in mind that Act is enacted with a view to see the public health is not

affected. Colouring matter – which may be used – use of inorganic colour and

pigments are prohibited – only permitted colour can be used – Metanil yellow is not

permitted – turmeric containing Metanil yellow is an offence. Food Article – Article

of Food sold to Food Inspector is used for other purpose then Food – Turmeric

powder is food as it is a condiment used in preparation of food – it is food even it is

used for other purpose. Sec. 10 – Food Inspector is empowered to take sample of any

Food article. Procedure for collecting sample falls into four broad stages – (1) taking

of sample (2) dividing, packing and sealing of the sample (3) sending of one the



sample to the Public Analyst (4) Analysis by the Public Analyst of the sample sent to

him – when broad facts regarding procedure are proved then it is permitted to raise

the presumption u/s. 114 of the evidence Act in favour of the compliance with the

law.

82. 1998(2) GLH 943, State V/s. Mannanbhai Hasanali.

Sec. 19 – Defense of warranty by the accused – vendor – he is required to prove that

article was purchased by him from the manufacturer or dealer with warranty as per

Rule-12A – vendor can be exonerated only when it is established by him that article

was purchased with written warranty – that he stored the article in proper condition

after purchased and that he sold it in the same state as per purchased it – no

satisfactory evidence was led by accused – defense of warranty not available. Manner

of sending, labeling, packing and sealing of sample – Rule 14 to 16 – panchnama

shows … taking – labeling – packing – sealing of sample – Food Inspector also

deposed about … from the evidence – Rule 14 to 16 complied with. Evidence of Food

Inspector – about packing – sealing of sample – not challenged in cross (presumption)

– in absence of personal allegation evidence of Food Inspector must be accepted. Sec.

20 – sanction – laying prosecution is not a simple matter – consent cannot be

accorded without application of mind – in the bill produced by vendor no description

of goods is mentioned – neither name of purchaser, nor vendor’s name was

mentioned – sanction against manufacturer also – consent is totally without

application of mind – acquittal.

83. Sardarmal Jain V/s. Nagarnigam Supreme Court’s decision decided in

June-1995.

Sample of Barfi – adulterated Witne Rhodamine-B – barfi placed on newspaper –

newspaper printed with Rhodamine Ink – lot of doubt in the food article being

adulterated by vendor or his servant – conviction not maintained.

Adulterant and adulteration - substance.

84. Rajinder Kumar V/s. State decided by Hon’ble Punjab High Court in Dec.

1994.



Ownership must be prove – it is for the prosecution to prove that accused was owner

of the shop – if fail – accused is entitle for acquittal.

85. 1991(2) FAC 1 Shri Rajinder V/s. State.

Sec. 17 – Partnership not proved – no evidence to prove partnership – if Food

Inspector is believed that the first accused told him about partnership it is not enough

– further evidence must be produced about partnership- acquittal.

86. 2002(2) GLR 1831 Arvindbhai Ravjibhai V/s. State.

Sec. 7 & 16 – Rule 4(4) – seal on container and outer cover not compared with the

impression received separately – Held – proceeding vitiated for non-compliance of

mandatory provision by Central Food Laboratory. Sec. 7, 16 & 20 – as per report of

Public Analyst there was no seal on the container in which the sample was sent – in

such case sanction for prosecution could not be given – proceedings held vitiated.

87. 2002(1) GLR 415 State of Gujarat V/s. Murtuza Ali.

Food – Sec. 2(1a),(a),(b) & (m), 7(1), 13(2) & 13(5) – Rule 4 & 5 – Schedule-B –

tests prescribed in schedule-B for different items – analysis not bound to be limited to

prescribed test alone – report of Central Food Laboratory indicating that sample of

rapeseed oil was in conformity with prescribed norms except Aflatoxin-B-1 test –

accepting contention of accused that Aflatoxin-B-1 was not one of the tests

prescribed, Magistrate passed order of discharging – order set aside.

88. 2002(1) GLR 490 Mohanlal V/s. State.

Sec. 13(2) – report of Public Analyst not signed on the day of sample was examined –

this would not affect prosecution – slight delay in sending the report to Local Health

Authority no vitiate the proceedings – details of test not required to be mentioned in

Public Analyst report. Sec. 13(2) & 13(5) – effect of delay in launching prosecution –

prosecution after 15 months – food – ‘ganthia’ not used preservative – sample would

degenerated thereby depriving of accused of his right to have it examine by Central

Food Laboratory. Conviction set aside.

89. 2001(1) GLR 267, Gopalshankar V/s. State.



Prevention of Food Adulteration Act – Sec. 17 – prosecution of a company –

company nominated a person u/s. 17(2) to be one responsible for the conduct of the

business of the company. Other Director or officer cannot be prosecuted unless it is

alleged that offence is committed with the consent or connivance of such other

Director or officer.

90.2005(1) GLR 331 Salim Sopariwala V/s. State.

Sec. 13(2)(c) – sample sent to Central Food Laboratory – Central Food Laboratory

did not send report within the prescribed time and request for another sample on the

ground that report of sample previously sent could not be prepared – Magistrate sent

another sample – Held, sample could not have been sent to Laboratory again on such

ground.

91. 2004(1) GLR 566 state V/s. Karsanbhai.

Sec. 2(1a)(i) & Rule-23 – it is not correct to say that if Turmeric powder (which is not

injurious) is added to ‘Ghee’ no offence is committed u/s. 2(1a)(i) and Rule-23 –

negative such contention – on fact – acquittal upheld.

92. 2003(3) GLR 1876 P.C. Trivedi V/s. Gajaraben Chandulal.

Sample of Cow milk found to contain one percent less fat – incident 17 years old

involving lady accused – High Court declined to interfere with the acquittal.

93. 2003(3) GLR 1965 Vahanvati Agro Centre V/s. State.

Sec. 24(4) – although, sample was collected much earlier, complaint was filed after

the expiry date of the insecticide…. Proceedings quashed.

94. 2003(2) GLR 1620 Shambhu Dayal V/s. State.

Sec. 9, 12 & 13 (Sec. 154 & 482 of Cr.P.C.) – Rule-9 & 14 – PSI intercepted a truck

carrying edible items – collecting samples in presence of Food Inspector & filed

F.I.R. – Held PSI not having a purchaser could not have filed F.I.R. – procedure for

taking and preserving samples was not followed – F.I.R. quashed.

95. 2003(2) GLR 1256 Gangadhar V/s. Suresh Parikh.

Sec. 7(1) & 20 – on receipt of report of Public Analyst the Food Inspector sent his

report to Local Health Laboratory for sanction – sanctioning Authority filed in detail

in a ready format and accorded sanction on the same day – on receipt of the sanction



complaint filed on the same day – Held – sanction was accorded without application

of mind – acquittal confirmed.

96. 2005(2) GLR 1518 Vallabhbhai Popatbhai V/s. State.

Sec. 7(1) & 16(1)(a)(i) – sample of curd – no evidence that the sample curd was

homogeneous – claim of the Food Inspector that the entire lot of 5 Kg. of curd was

stirred with spoon – sample was drawn thereafter – claim not found plausible –

accused entitled for acquittal.Report of Public Analyst not sent to accused – would

vitiate the prosecution case.Sample analysed by Laboratory at Vadodara – forwarding

letter to sanctioning Authority stated that report of Public Health Laboratory, Bhuj

was sent – sanctioning Authority intimated the accused that Bhuj Laboratory has

found the sample adulterated – discrepancies also found in date of the Laboratory

report – Held – there was non-application of mind by the sanctioning Authority –

accused entitled for acquittal on this ground.

97. 2005(2) GLR 1767 State of Gujarat V/s. Punabhai Ramabhai.

Sec. 7(1)(v) & 16(1)(a)(i) – Rule-14 – adulterated milk – acquittal on the ground that

Rule-14 not complied with – in cross examination Food Inspector admitting that

bottles for collecting sample were not cleaned by himself and not on the spot – helper

not examined – held Rule-14 not complied with – acquittal upheld.

98. 2005(2) GLR 1221 Ramesh G. Bendbar V/s. J.M. Shah & Anr.

Sec. 20 – acquittal – consent for prosecution was defective as order granting consent

did not contain reasons – during pendency of appeals in the High Court, Supreme

Court rendered judgments holding that detailed reasons are not necessary – acquittal

liable to be set aside.

99. 1992(O) GLHEL (SC) 29915 State of Uttar Pradesh V/s. Hanif

Sec. 7, 10 & 16 – appointment of Public Analyst for entire state – another person

appointed as Public Analyst for Local area – person appointed for whole state does

not cease to have jurisdiction over local area for which another man appointed – both

Public Analyst have jurisdiction. Evidence of Food Inspector need not be

corroborated by independent witness – examination of panch witness not necessary.

100. 1983 GLH 333 (SC) Food Inspector V/s. Manadlal R. Sharma.



Sec. 11(1)(b) – Rules-15,16,20,22 – churning of sample of milk or curd, milk

preparation – before dividing into three parts – churning by hand not improper. Only

marginal adulteration – six years …. Acquittal confirm.

101. 1997(1) GLH 550 State of Gujarat V/s. Imtiyaj Haji Abdul Sattar.

Rules 17 & 18 – container of the sample and memorandum with specimen seal

impression must be sent separately to Public Analyst – no postal evidence produced

but …. In communication from the Public Analyst it is mentioned that sample bottled

and memorandum with specimen seal impression received separately – sufficient to

raise the presumption u/s. 114 of the Evidence Act.

102. 1990(1) GLH 427 (SC) Dineshchandra V/s. State of Gujarat.

Rules 29(f) & 29(m) – ‘Beternut’- supari – containing permitted coal tar dye – is till

adulterated not being fruit product within Rule-29(f) nor flavouring agent within

29(m) – mensrea is relevant.

103. 1999(3) GCD 1871 State V/s. Gangaram.

Sec. 20(1) – application of mind – merely because word ‘prima-facie’ is not written

therein – it could not be concluded that Authority has not applied its mind.

Sec. 13(2) – accused No. 1 has received the notice, he has also accepted the notice on

behalf of accused No. 2 – no evidence that No.1 was entitled to accept notice on

behalf on No. 2 – in absence of material – grievance of accused No. 2 that he was not

served with notice is held justified.

104. 2001(2) GLR 1731 State V/s. Rajesh.

Sec. 11(c)(i) – requirement to intimate the Local health Authority – fact that sample

has been sent to Public Analyst – provision is mandatory – oral evidence not

supported by documents – acquittal order on this count confirmed.

105. 1999 FAC 23 (MP) Satyanarayan Gupta V/s. Mohan Lal

Sec. 11 read with Rule-14 – sample of groundnut oil – before taking sample of oil

stored was not stirred and made homogeneous – rightly held sample taken was not a

representative sample and was violation of Rule-14 – acquittal.

106. 2002(2) FAC 156 (Guj.) State V/s. Sohanlal.

Rule-14 – about bottles were clean & dried – mandatory – not compliance – acquittal.

107. 2005(2) FAC 145 State V/s. Punabhai.



Rule-14 – mandatory – not clean & dry by Food Inspector himself – helper,

responsible for cleaning the bottle not examined – acquittal upheld.

108. 2005(1) FAC 46 C.D. Patel Food Inspector V/s. Popatlal Jivaji.

Rule-14 – bottles were not made clean at the time when sample was taken – acquittal.

109. 2013 (2) G.L.H. 144 Raman Krishna Iyer ...Applicant Versus State of

Gujarat and Anr....Respondents Criminal Revision Application No. 914 of 2005.

D/- 18.01.2013.

CRIMINAL LAWS - Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - S. 7(1) and S. 16 -

Adulteration of curd - Conviction challenged - Held, improper method of collecting

samples - Compliance of R. 14 raised doubt - Further held, "store" refers to "storing

for sale" - Mere storing of adulterated article of food other than for sale would not

constitute an offence - Mere accepting cost of a food article after Food Inspector

disclosing the identity, will not ipso facto amount to "sale" - It should be shown that

the food article was being sold in ordinary course of business - Both the Courts did

not appreciate the statement made by the accused under Section 313 - Judgments of

the Trial Courts quashed and set aside - Acquitted from the charges under Section

7(1) and Section 16 - Petition allowed. Thus, it is amply clear from above

observations and scheme of the provisions of PFA Act referred to in para 9, 10, 11

that storage or distribution of an adulterated article of food for a purpose other than

for sale does not fall within the mischief of Sections 7 and 16 of the PFA Act and that

the Food Inspector is authorised to take samples only from particular persons

indulging in a specified course of business activity and the immediate and ultimate

end of such activity is sale of an article of food, and if the article of food is not

intended for sale and is in possession of a person, who does not fulfill the character of

seller, conveyer, deliverer, consignee, manufacturer or storer for sale, the Food

Inspector is incompetent to take a sample and launch prosecution on such sample

being found adulterated. Thus mere storage of adulterated food article cannot

constitute an offence under PFA Act. It is not the prosecution case that, when the

Food Inspector entered into the hotel, the petitioner was engaged in sale of curd or

that at that point of time there were customers in the hotel consuming or ordering for

the curd or that curd was mentioned in menu card as one of the item for sale. It is also



not the case of the prosecution that the Food Inspector made any inquiry ensuring that

the curd was stored for sale or that the hotelier, who was selling many other items,

was also a seller of curd. The prosecution presumed that since a sample was given by

the petitioner to the Food Inspector, without stating that it was not for sale, it

amounted to "sale". Thus, entire case proceeded on this wrong presumption. (Para 14)

The prosecution also expected the petitioner to disprove the fact that the curd was

stored not for sale even as he parted with sample and accepted its cost. Therefore, in

the first place, a question as to whether the petitioner could have refused to part with

the sample of curd on the ground that it was not stored for sale without exposing

himself to the proceedings under Section 10 of the PFA Act would arise. It may be

recalled that the Food Inspector had disclosed his identity as such to the petitioner

before collecting the sample in question. His intention was to collect the sample of

food article presuming the petitioner as its seller. Under the circumstances, refusal of

the sample on any ground could have exposed the petitioner to an additional

prosecution under Section 10 of PFA Act. Thus, there is no merit in the argument of

the learned Counsel for respondents on this count. Further, Sub-Section (3) of Section

10, which obliges the Food Inspector to pay for the collection of sample at such rate

as the article is being sold to the public at large, also, by itself, is clear enough to

indicate that the sample which is collected must be of such food article which is

meant for sale, but contra cannot be true. Just because a person accepted the cost of a

food article collected from him, after Food Inspector discloses to him his identity,

will not ipso facto amount to "sale" unless it is shown by the Food

Inspector/Prosecution that, in fact, the food article was being sold in ordinary course

of business. Further, the Courts were bound to deal with the case of the petitioner

specifically pleaded by hi, in his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. In Rajinder

Kumar (supra), no such case was pleaded/proved and therefore the observations made

in para 11 thereof relied upon by learned Counsel for the respondents cannot be

applied to the facts of the present case. Similarly, State of Tamil Nadu v. R.

Krishnamurthy (supra) is not an Authority on the issue involved in this case.

Moreover, the appellate Court appears to have misdirected itself by holding that

about:blank#14



adulterated food article was to be used as an ingredient in preparation of other food

article even as it considered that fact which was not even pleaded and proved. Be it

noted, that what was relied upon by the respondents was adulteration of curd by the

petitioner, for his prosecution, and not any other product that could have been

ultimately made by using the curd as one of the ingredient. (Para 15)

It is also required to be appreciated that generally the fats and other nutrients of

articles like milk or curd would take the surface if stored for some time. Therefore,

the Courts have repeatedly held [See: Santoshkumar Sarma (supra) and Revatiprasad

Menduram Agarwal (supra)] that, while collecting the sample of curd, it has to be cut

vertically then churned if the curd has not settled. It is, however, not clear in this case

as to whether the curd had settled or not. The sample was stated to have been stirred if

it is rotated by means of spoon and churning. While article can be said to have been

stirred if it is rotated by means of spoon and churning would mean that it is

vigorously blended so that every single part of its constituent is so mixed that it

becomes homogenous. Admittedly, the food article was not vertically cut and churned

and, thus, there are all the reasons to believe that sample was not homogenous. (Para

18)

As noticed above, there was no evidence with the trial Court showing that the food

article was for sale as contemplated under Sections 7 and 16 of the PFA Act. Not only

that, the Court did not appreciate the statement made by the accused under Section

313 of Cr.P.C., and the lower appellate Court misdirected itself and considered the

fact which was not even pleaded and proved. Thus, both the Courts below were in

serious error of law. Even the mandatory provisions of the Rules, as aforesaid, were

not followed and none of the Courts below appreciated that aspect. Thus the case for

invocation of revisionsal jurisdiction by this Court is made out

1.2012 (0) GLHEL-HC 227221N.M.Patel Versus State Of Gujarat

Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - S. 7, 16 - Prevention of Food

Adulteration Rules, 1955 - R. 14 - sample of groundnut oil - non-conformation to the

about:blank#15

about:blank#18

about:blank#18



prescribed standards - Trial Court held that there is no evidence to indicate that

bottles were not cleaned and sterilized and therefore it is a matter of doubt whether

the Public Analyst report reflects the correct quality of the sample - order of acquittal

- appeal against acquittal - held, there is absolutely no evidence to indicate that bottles

were cleaned or that bottles were brand new - requirement of R. 14 therefore cannot

be said to have been complied with - acquittal order upheld - appeal dismissed.

2. 2012 (0) GLHEL-HC 227443 State Of Gujarat Versus Jaiswal Navinchandra

Himatlal Criminal Appeal No. 145 of 2005 ; *J.Date :- MARCH 16, 2012

PREVENTION OF FOOD ADULTERATION ACT, 1954 Section - 2(1)(a) , 2(1)(h) ,

2(1)(j) , 7(1) , 16(1)

Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - S. 2(1)(a), (h), (j), 7(1), 16(1) -

adulteration of chilly powder - order of acquittal challenged - however, except

evidence of complainant there was no evidence to prove that complainant collected

food article in clean, dry and transparent bottles - nor it was in dispute that

complainant did not depose that at time of taking sample bottles were cleaned and

dried - held, compliance of R. 14 raises serious doubt - mere statement of Food

Inspector would not amount to compliance with mandatory provision of said rule -

therefore, sample sent to Public Analyst for analysis cannot be considered as

representative sample and hence, lower Appellate Court was justified in acquitting

accused - appeal dismissed.

3. 2012 (0) GLHEL-HC 226644 Himanshubhai Keshavlal Patel - Owner Of

Jayambe Traders Versus State Of Gujarat

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - S. 397, 401 - Prevention of Food Adulteration

Act, 1955 - S. 7, 16(1)(c)(i) - accused allegedly selling adulterated oil - oil sample

was taken - on trial convicted - revision - Food Inspector had taken the sample when

tins of oil were being sent by manufacturer from Rajkot to applicant at Ahmedabad

during transit - applicant had not received the goods tins of oil - driver of the tempo

about://157/37307.ADF

about://157/37310.adf

about://157/37310.adf

about://157/37310.adf

about://157/37319.adf

about://157/37331.adf



wherein the tins of oil were carried told the Food Inspector that foods were purchased

by applicant - held, applicant cannot be held guilty for offence punishable under the

Act, 1955 as he had not received the goods - applicant entitled to benefit under

provisions of S. 19(2) of the Act, 1955 - judgment of conviction set aside - applicant

acquitted - application allowed.

4. 1997(3) GLR 2424. STATE OF GUJARAT v. RAMANBHAI DURLABHBHAI

PATEL & ANR.*

CRIMINAL TRIAL — Food adulteration — Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules,

1955 — Rule 4(3) — Evidence Act, 1872 (I of 1872) — Sec. 114 — Sending of copy

of memorandum and specimen impression of seal to the Director of Central Food

Laboratory — Rule mandatory — Non- compliance would result in acquittal — Mere

endorsement in Court record that memorandum and seal were sent is no proof that

they were actually sent — Presumption under Sec. 114 Evidence Act cannot be drawn

in such a case.

114. 1991(1) GLR 82 RAMANBHAI SHIVABHAI PRAJAPATI v. STATE OF

GUJARAT & ANR.*

Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (XXXVII of 1954) — Secs.14, 19, 20 &

20A — A bill may operate as a warranty — Where an accused produces a bill, and

facts disclose that what he sold was an article in the form which he received, the

convicting of the accused is bad — The seller ought to have been put to trial —

Sanction to prosecute must contain reasons— In the absence thereof, it is bad.

115. 1991(1) GLR 380 KISHORKUMAR VENILAL PATEL v.DAYASWARUP

BHAILALBHAI RAO & ANR

Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (XXXVII of 1954) — Secs.2(m), 7 & 16

— Primary Food — Black pepper (Kali Mirch) is primary food — Merely because a

primary food does not conform to the prescribed standard, there is no offence — It

must further be proved that foreign material which was not harmful to health was

there on account of a human agency.



116. 1992(1) GLR 434 CLEMANT CHHOTALAL CRISTIAN v.

PARSHOTTAM SAVJIBHAI PARMAR & ANR.*

Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (XXXVII of 1954) - Prevention of Food

Adulteration Rules, 1955 - Rule 4(4) - Even under the unamended sub-rule, it was

obligatory on the Director of Central Food Laboratory to compare the condition of the

seal on the container with the specimen seal and to make a note thereof - Omission

therein renders the prosecution unfounded.

117. 1992(1) GLR 711.PRITHVIRAJ DAHYABHAI v. STATE OF GUJARAT

& ANR.*

Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (XXXVII of 1954) - Secs. 10(7), 13(5) &

20(1) - Law requires that a panch should be called for, but it is not an invariable rule

that the panch should support the case - The report of the public analyst after the

amendment in the Act is admissible in evidence per se - The officer granting consent

need not record reasons for granting consent.

118. 1992(2) GLR 929 GUNVANTRAY CHHOTALAL BHATTv. MOHMAD

KUNJUMAL & ANR.*

Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (XXXVII of 1954) - Sec. 16(l}(a)(i) -

Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 - Rule 4(2) -Rule 4(2) is directory and

not mandatory - What is required is that there should be some mark on the packing

distinguishing it from other samples -”Food” and “sale” have been interpreted by the

Supreme Court - Where a Food Inspector takes a sample of oil, the requirements of

sale are satisfied.

119. 1993(1) GLR 430. IQBAL MUSABHAI HUNANI v. STATE OF GUJARAT &

ANR.*

Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (XXXVII of 1954) - Secs. 7(1) &

16(l)(a)(i) - ‘Khajur’ wrapped in Aluminium leaf instead of Silver leaf - Aluminium

coating not injurious to health - No offence committed.



120. 1993(2) GLR 1007. STATE OF GUJARAT v. KHIMABHAI NATHABHAI

BHARWAD etc.

Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (XXXVII of 1954) - Secs. 2(l-a), 7 & 16 -

Addition of a preservative known as formalin to milk amounts to adulteration -

Formalin is a poisonous substance - Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 -

Rules 20, 44, 52 & 65 - Merely because panchas do not support the case, it does not

follow that the case should be disbelieved - The Act speaks of inflicting a minimum

sentence and in the interest of the society, no leniency should be shown.

121. 1997(1) GLR 458. CHIMANLAL GOVINDJI THAKKER v. STATE OF

GUJARAT & ANR.

(A) Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (XXXVII of 1954) — Secs. 7

& 16(1)(a) —

Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 — Rule 9A — Public Analyst by

microscopic test concluded that sample of chilly powder contained paddy kusaka and

rice particles —Microscopic test not provided for in the Act or Rules — Percentage

of husk or rice particles found in the sample not indicated — Accused entitled to

acquittal.

(B) Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (XXXVII of 1954) — Secs. 7

& 16(1)(a) —

Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 — Rule 9A — Requirement to send

report of the result of analysis to person from whom sample was taken within 7 days

after the institution of prosecution — Such report sent more than one month after

filing the complaint—Accused entitled to acquittal.

122. 2007(2) Criminal Court Cases 053 (Delhi)

Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, Sections 7 and 16 - Food - Misbranded -

Franchiser - Cannot be prosecuted if he is permitted to use brand name/trade name by

franchisee and franchisee is the manufacturer.

123. 1997(2) GLR 1391. STAT ZZWAVE OF GUJARAT v.GANESHBHAI

CHAMNAJI RAVAL



Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (XXXVIII of 1954) — Sec. 13(2) —

Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 — Rule 9A as amended — It is

mandatory — Non-compliance with either provision would result in a benefit of

doubt to the accused.

(IT HAS BEEN DISCUSSED IN ABOVE CITATION THAT Supreme Court in the

case Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ghisa Ram, reported in AIR 1967 SC 970,

learned Advocate Shri Shah for respondent- accused No. 2 has submitted that the

sample of curd would remain fit for analysis after adding preservative only for four

months if kept in a room temperature and only for six months if kept in a

refrigerator.)

124. 1998(1) GLR 528. NESTLE INDIA LTD. & ANR. v. STATE OF GUJARAT &

ORS.*

Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (XXXVII of 1954) — Sec. 13 — The

report of the Central Food Laboratory supersedes the report of the public analyst of

the State — If the report of the Central Food Laboratory does not help the

complainant, continuation of the prosecution is sheer waste and harassment to the

accused — Prosecution quashed.

125. 1998(1) GLR 214. STATE OF GUJARAT v. IMTIYAJ HAJI ABDUL

SATTAR*

(A) Evidence Act, 1872 (I of 1872) — Sec. 114 — Prevention of Food Adulteration

Rules, 1955 — Rules 17 & 18 — Requirement to send memorandum with specimen

seal impression separately to Public Analyst — Letter of Public Analyst indicating

that these were received separately — In such a case it would not be necessary for the

prosecution to bring on record other material to show that these were sent separately

— Order of acquittal on the ground that postal receipt and acknowledgment slip were

not produced reversed.

(B) Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (XXXVII of 1954) — Sec. 20 —

Food adulteration — Sanction for prosecution — Consent Authority not required to

record reasons while giving consent to prosecute.



126. 2005(3) GLR 2752 STATE OF GUJARAT v. VADILAL POPATLAL

MEHTA*

Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (XXXVII of 1954) — Secs. 2(ia), 7 & 16

— Sample of food item ‘Mag Dal’ found to contain live insects and webs —

However, report of Central Food Laboratory did not indicate that sample food article

was unfit for human consumption — Acquittal recorded by trial Court relying on

Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Kacheroo Mal, AIR 1976 SC 394 — Acquittal

upheld.

127. 2005(2) GLR 1767 STATE OF GUJARAT v. PUNABHAI RAMABHAI

MACHHI*

(A) Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (XXXVII of 1954) Secs. 7(1)(v) &

16(1)(a)(i) Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 Rule 14 Adulterated Milk

Food Inspector taking sample of milk for analysis Sample found adulterated by

Public Analyst Magistrate acquitting accused on ground that Rule 14 not complied

with In cross- examination, Food Inspector admitting that bottles for collecting

sample were not cleaned by himself and not on the spot Helper not examined Held,

Rule 14 not complied with Acquittal upheld.

128. 2005(2) GLR 1518 VALLABHBHAI POPATBHAI v. STATE OF GUJARAT

& ANR.*

(A) Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (XXXVII of 1954) Sec. 13(2)

Sample analysed by Laboratory at Vadodara Forwarding letter to sanctioning

authority stated that report of Public Health Laboratory, Bhuj was sent Sanctioning

authority intimated the accused that Bhuj Laboratory had found the sample

adulterated Discrepancy also found in date of the Laboratory report Held, there was

non-application of mind by the sanctioning authority Accused entitled to acquittal on

this ground.



(B) Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (XXXVII of 1954) Secs. 7(1) &

16(1)(a)(i) Sample of curd not shown to have been drawn by a detail-cut No

evidence that the sample curd was homogenised

Claim of the Food Inspector that the entire lot of 5 kg. of curd in the shop was stirred

with spoon and sample was drawn thereafter Claim not found plausible Held,

sample not being homogenous finding of Laboratory that fat content was less cannot

be viewed seriously Accused entitled to acquittal on this count.

(C) Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (XXXVII of 1954) Sec. 13 Report of

Public Analyst not sent to accused Non-supply of report to accused would vitiate the

prosecution case.

129. 2005 (3) GLR 2725 STATE OF GUJARAT v. M/S. ASHOKKUMAR

SHITALDAS FIRM .

Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (XXXVII of 1954) — Sec. 19(2) —

Giving benefit of warranty on the ground that item was purchased from another

supplier — Benefit given only on production of copies of the bills that did not contain

particulars — Held, benefit of Sec. 19(2) was wrongly given — Matter remanded to

trial Court for framing appropriate issue.

130. 2005(3) GLR 2056 G. Y. RAMEKRA v. REHMANBHAI I. GHANCHI &

ORS.*

(A) Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 — Rule 8 — Notification

appointing the complainant as Food Inspector was on record — Held, Magistrate

erred in holding that as there was lacuna in the training period, it cannot be said that

appointment of Food Inspecter was valid.

(B) Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (XXXVII of 1954) — Sec. 13(2) —

Notice under Sec. 13(2) of the Act was sent to the address of the shop from where the

sample was collected — Acknowledgment slips were signed by one of the two

accused persons who were brothers — Held, Magistrate erred in holding that notice

was not served on the owner.

(C) Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (XXXVII of 1954) — Sec. 20(i) —

Sanction letter showed that the authority had perused the file and report of Public

Analyst — It was apparent that sanction was given after due application of mind —



Held, the Magistrate erred in holding that sanction was invalid as provision of law

was not mentioned and sanction was given on the same day on which the file was

received.

131. 2005(2) GLR 1221. RAMESH GANPATRAO BENDBAR v. JIVANLAL

MANGALDAS SHAH & ANR.

Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (XXXVII of 1954) Sec. 20 Acquittal by

Magistrate on the ground that consent for prosecution was defective as order granting

consent did not contain reasons During pendency of appeals in the High Court,

Supreme Court rendered judgment holding that detailed reasons are not necessary

Acquittal liable to be set aside However, since a period of 20 years had elapsed

matter not remanded to trial Court for denovo trial.

132. 2012 (0) GLHEL-HC 228035 Aarif A.Gani Memon Versus Food Inspector

Criminal Revision Application No. 569 of 2003 ; *J.Date :- FEBRUARY 22, 2012


Act, 1954 - S. 7(1), 16 - adulteration in chilly powder - Food Inspector took sample

from retailer - conviction for offence of adulteration - contended that public analyst

had not taken the sample in presence of panchas - report of public analyst that red and

yellow colour was mixed in substance - report of public analyst does not show that

the colour used was injurious to public health - held, prosecution failed to establish

offence beyond doubt - accused acquitted - application allowed.

133. 2011 (0) GLHEL-HC 226124 Keshubhai Ranabhai Tukadiya Versus State

Of Gujarat CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION No. 764 of 2007 ; *J.Date

:- NOVEMBER 23, 2011

CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 Section - 397 , 401

PREVENTION OF FOOD ADULTERATION ACT, 1954 Section - 7(1) , 16

PREVENTION OF FOOD ADULTERATION RULES, 1955 Rule - 14

about://303/57316.ADF

about://303/57787.adf

about://303/57791.adf

about://157/37307.ADF

about://157/37319.adf

about://157/37331.adf

about://157/37346.ADF

about://157/37387.adf




Act, 1954 - S. 7(1), 16 - Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 - R. 14 -

sample of adulterated buffalo milk - collection of - objected on ground that bottle was

not cleaned and dried before taking sample - deposition made by Food Inspector that

helpers were responsible for cleaning bottles and he himself has not cleaned bottle -

but helper who was responsible deposed that he was not aware of said procedure that

bottle to be cleaned and dried before collection of sample - held, there is clear breach

of mandatory requirements under R. 14 - conviction cannot be sustained - appeal

allowed.

134. 2012 (1) G.L.H. 31 Pravinkumar Vallabhbhai Patel and Ors. ....Applicants

Versus State of Gujarat and Anr.....Respondents Criminal Revision Application

No. 409 of 2004. D/- 01.08.2011.

[A] CRIMINAL LAWS - Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - S. 19 -

Defence which may or may not be allowed in prosecutions under this Act - A vendor

merely pleading ignorance about the nature, substance and quality of food article sold

by him is of no defence under Section 19(1) - Section 19(2) provides a deeming

fiction under which the vendor shall not be deemed to have committed an offence

pertaining to the sale of adulterated or misbranded article of food - For getting benefit

to the sale of adulterated or misbranded article of food - For getting benefit of

deeming fiction, it must be proved by the vendor that he purchased the food article (i)

from duly licensed manufacturer, distributor or dealer in a case where a licence is

prescribed for the sale thereof or (ii) in any other case, from any manufacturer,

distributor or dealer with a written warranty in the prescribed form and secondly that

the food article was properly stored by him and he sold it in the same state as he

purchased it - Vendor took the defence by simply producing the bill before the Food

Inspector - Held, provisions of Section 19(2) are not satisfied.

In the facts of the present case the offending food article has been recovered from the

vendor viz., the accused No.1 to 6. Under the provisions of sub-Section (1) of Section

19 of the Act a vendor merely alleging that he was ignorant of the nature, substance



and quality of the food sold by him is no defence in a prosecution pertaining to the

sale of adulterated or misbranded food article. However, sub-Section (2) of Section

19 of the Act provides for a deeming fiction under which the vendor shall not be

deemed to have committed an offence pertaining to the sale of adulterated or

misbranded article of food. For the purpose of getting the benefit of sub-Section (2)

of Section 19 of the Act the vendor is required to prove two things. That he has

purchased the food article (i) from a duly licensed manufacturer, distributor or dealer

in a case where a licence is prescribed for the sale thereof, or (ii) in any other case,

from any manufacturer, distributor or dealer, with a written warranty in the prescribed

form; and secondly that the article of food while in his possession was properly stored

and that he sold it in the same state as he purchased it. In the facts of the present case

it is an admitted position that the applicants herein are licensed manufacturers, in the

circumstances, the vendor for the purpose of availing the defence under sub-Section

(1) of Section 19 of the Act was required to prove that he had purchased the article of

food from a duly licensed manufacturer with a warranty in the prescribed form and

that the article of food while in his possession was properly stored and that he sold the

same in the same state as he purchased it. Examining the facts of the present case in

the background of the aforesaid statutory requirement, the vendor has taken up the

defence under sub-Section (1) of Section 19 of the Act by producing before the

complainant the bill (Exhibit -102). It is on the basis of the said bill that the Courts

below have been satisfied that the provisions of sub-Section (2) of Section 19 of the

Act have been duly satisfied. (Para 7)

[B] CRIMINAL LAWS - Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - S. 19 -

Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 - R. 12-A - Warranty - Manufacturer,

distributor or dealer to give either separately or in the bill, cash memo or label, a

warranty in Form VI-A - No warranty printed on the bill - No separate warranty was

also produced by the vendor - Requirement of having purchased goods from a duly

licensed manufacturer with a written warranty in prescribed form is not established.

From the facts noted hereinabove, it is an admitted position that no warranty is

printed on the bill (Exhibit-102), consequently, it is also an admitted position that the

about:blank#7



bill in question did not contain any warranty as envisaged under rule 12-A of the

Rules. Thus, the requirement of having purchased goods from a duly licensed

manufacturer with a written warranty in the prescribed form is clearly not satisfied.

On behalf of the prosecution it has been contended that the requirement of written

warranty is only where a case falls under sub-clause (ii) of clause (a) of Section 19(2)

and that the same would not be applicable to a case like the present one which falls

under sub-clause (i) of clause (a) viz., where the article of food is purchased from a

duly licensed manufacturer, distributor or dealer in a case where a license is

prescribed for the sale thereof. The aforesaid contention cannot be countenanced

inasmuch as the said contention flies in the face of the law laid down by the Supreme

Court

In the light of the aforesaid facts, it is apparent that the requirements of sub-Section

(2) of Section 19 of the Act have not been satisfied by the vendor. In the

circumstances, the accused No.1 to 5 have failed to prove the warranty as required

under Section 19 of the Act. (Para 11)

[C] CRIMINAL LAWS - (Indian) Evidence Act, 1872 - S. 67 - Proof of signature and

hand writing of person alleged to have signed or written document - If a document is

signed or written wholly or in part by any person, then his signature or the hand

writing must be proved - Prosecution is required to prove the signature and

handwriting, either by calling the person who signed or wrote the content of the

document or by calling the person in whose presence the document was signed or

written, or by calling an expert or by calling the person who is acquainted with the

handwriting of the person by whom the document is purported to be signed or written

- There must be specific evidence that the signature purporting to be that of

executants is in the handwriting of the executants - Unless that is proved, the

execution of the document cannot be held to be proved - In the absence of proof of

signature or handwriting on the document, mere production of it would not be

sufficient to infer that the said document has been executed by the parties.

about:blank#11



However, all that can be said to be proved by the complainant is the fact that the said

bill was the bill produced before him by the accused No.1 stating that the same was

the bill on the basis of which he had purchased the tins of groundnut oil. However,

the bill per se is not proved, inasmuch there is no evidence to the effect that this was

the bill which was given by the manufacturer viz. the applicants herein in respect of

sale of the food article in question to the vendor, that is, the accused No.1 to 5. Nor is

the genuineness of the said bill proved. Moreover, as has been rightly contended by

the learned Advocate for the applicants, a perusal of the record of the case indicates

that the contents of the said bill have not been proved in accordance with Section 67

of the Evidence Act. Section 67 of the Evidence Act provides that if a document is

alleged to be signed or to have been written wholly or in part by any person, the

signature or the handwriting of so much of the document as is alleged to be in that

person's handwriting must be proved to be in his handwriting.

In the circumstances, to prove the contents of the bill, the prosecution was required to

prove the signature and the handwriting thereon either by calling the person who

signed or wrote the contents thereof, or by calling the person in whose presence the

document was signed or written, or by calling an expert, or by calling the person who

is acquainted with the handwriting of the person by whom the document was

purported to be signed or written, by comparison of the signature on the document

with the admitted or proved signature of the person who is purported to have signed

or written the document, by other circumstantial evidence. Moreover, there must be

specific evidence that the signature purporting to be that of executant is in the

handwriting of the executant; unless that is proved, the execution thereof cannot be

held to be proved. Section 67 makes proof of execution of a document something

different from the mere proof of the matter. In the absence of proof of signatures or

handwriting on the document, mere production of the document would not be

sufficient to infer that the said document has been executed by the parties. In the

circumstances, mere production of the bill in question by the complainant - Food

Inspector, without proving the handwriting and the signature thereof or without

leading any other evidence and without making any attempt to prove the contents



thereof by proving the signature or author thereof, it was not permissible to admit the

contents thereof in evidence. In the light of the aforesaid discussion it is apparent that

all that is proved by the prosecution is that the Bill (Exhibit 102) is the bill which was

produced by the accused No.1 before the complainant when he visited the shop of the

accused No.6 firm. However, the prosecution has failed to lead any evidence to

establish that the Bill (Exhibit 102) has been issued by the applicants in respect of the

sale of the food article in question to the vendor and has also failed to prove the

contents of the said bill. (Para 12)

[D] CRIMINAL LAWS - Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - S. 14 -

Manufacturers, distributors and dealers to give warranty - Section would come into

play only when the manufacturer, distributor or dealer has given a bill, cash memo or

invoice in respect of sale of such food article to any vendor - When the fact of issuing

such bill itself is not proved, the deeming fiction under proviso to Section 14 would

not be attracted - It is a condition precedent for taking defence under the deeming

fiction that a bill, cash memo or invoice should have been issued by the manufacturer

or distributor or dealer in such food article.

It has been contended on behalf of the prosecution that in view of the provisions of

Section 14 of the Act a bill, cash memorandum or invoice in respect of sale of any

article of food given by a manufacturer or distributor of, or dealer in, such article to

the vendor thereof shall be deemed to a warranty given by such manufacturer,

distributor or dealer under the said Section, hence there is no necessity for compliance

of the provisions of rule 12-A for the purpose of invoking the proviso to Section 14 of

the Act. As is apparent on a plain reading of Section 14 of the Act, the same imposes

an obligation on a manufacturer, or a distributor or a dealer not to sell any article of

food to any vendor unless he also gives a warranty in writing in the prescribed form

about the nature and quality of such article to the vendor. The proviso thereto,

however, introduces a deeming fiction whereby a bill, cash memorandum or invoice

in respect of the sale of any article of food given by a manufacturer or distributor of,

or dealer in, such article to the vendor is deemed to be a warranty given by such

manufacturer, distributor or dealer under that Section. Thus, even if there is no

about:blank#12



warranty, the bill issued is deemed to be a warranty by virtue of the proviso to

Section 14 of the Act. Thus, for the purpose of invoking the provisions of Section 14

of the Act and more particularly the proviso thereto, a bill, cash memorandum or

invoice is required to have been issued by the manufacturer, distributor or the dealer

to the vendor in respect of the sale of the article of food to the vendor. In the facts of

the present case there is a bill (Exhibit 102) which has been admitted in evidence

during the course of the cross examination of the complainant by the learned

Advocate for the accused No.1 to 5. All that is proved through the testimony of the

complainant is that the said bill was produced by the accused No.1 stating that the

food article in question had been purchased under the said bill. However, as discussed

earlier no evidence has been led by the prosecution or the accused No.1 to 5 to prove

the genuineness of the bill in question, nor have the contents of the said bill been

proved as required under Section 67 of the Evidence Act. In the absence of the

accused No.1 to 5 having established that the bill (Exhibit 102) was issued by the

applicants in respect of sale of the food article in question to them by leading

necessary evidence in that regard, the fact that the bill has been issued by the

applicants itself has not been proved. The contents of the bill have also not been

proved in terms of Section 67 of the Evidence Act, by proving the handwriting of the

person who has filled in the various columns under the bill as well as the signature of

such person. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the bill (Exhibit 102) has

been proved to be a bill issued by the applicants in respect of the sale of the food

articles in question. Once the factum of issuance of the bill (Exhibit 102) is held to be

not proved, the question of invoking the proviso to Section 14 of the Act would not

arise inasmuch as Section 14 would come into play provided the manufacturer,

distributor or dealer has given a bill, cash memorandum or invoice in respect of sale

of such article to any vendor. In the present case when the fact that the manufacturer

has given such a bill itself has not been proved, the deeming fiction under the proviso

to Section 14 of the Act would not be attracted because for the purpose of the

deeming fiction coming into operation, the condition precedent is that a bill, cash

memorandum or invoice in respect of the sale of such article of food should have

been given by the manufacturer or distributor of or dealer in such article. In the



circumstances, it cannot be deemed that the bill in question was a warranty issued by

the applicants - manufacturers and as such the proviso to Section 14 of the Act could

not have been invoked. (Para 14)

135. 2011 (0) GLHEL-HC 224476 Rajkot Municipal Corporation Versus State

Of Gujarat CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1390 of 2010 ; *J.Date :- JANUARY 31,

2011

PREVENTION OF FOOD ADULTERATION ACT, 1954 Section - 2(9)(k) , 7 ,

16(1A)(i)

PREVENTION OF FOOD ADULTERATION RULES, 1955 Rule - 32(e) , 33

CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 Section - 378

Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - S. 2(9)(k), 7, 16(1A)(i) - Prevention of

Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 - R. 32(e), 33 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - S.

378 - accused acquitted for charges of selling adulterated rice-ball - mandatory

provisions as to sealing and seizing sample not followed - punch witnesses had turned

hostile - sanction to file complaint granted in mechanical manner in breach of

requirement of Act, 1955 - held, prosecution has not proved case beyond reasonable

doubt - Trial Court's order acquitting accused upheld - appeal dismissed.

136. 2011 (0) GLHEL-HC 224475 Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation Versus

State Of Gujarat CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2248 of 2010 ; *J.Date :-JANUARY

31, 2011

PREVENTION OF FOOD ADULTERATION ACT, 1954 Section - 16(1)(a)(i)


Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - S. 16(1)(a)(i) - Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 - S. 378 - appeal against acquittal - Trial Court while considering the

oral as well as documentary evidence has clearly observed that prosecution has not

followed the mandatory provisions during the sealing and seizing the sample - from

the evidence itself it is established that prosecution has not proved its case beyond

about:blank#14

about://157/37307.ADF

about://157/37310.adf

about://157/37319.adf

about://157/37331.adf

about://157/37346.ADF

about://157/37411.adf

about://157/37413.adf

about://303/57316.ADF

about://303/57767.adf

about://157/37307.ADF

about://157/37331.adf

about://303/57316.ADF

about://303/57767.adf



reasonable doubt - panch witness has turned hostile - prosecution has failed to prove

that the substance mixed with the sugar found to have been dangerous to human life -

Trial Court was completely justified in acquitting respondent of the charges leveled

against him - no illegality or infirmity has been committed by it - appeal dismissed.

137. 2011 (0) GLHEL-HC 224410 State Of Gujarat Versus Mansukhlal

Jamnadas Nathwani, CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 615 of 1988 ; *J.Date :-

JANUARY 18, 2011

PREVENTION OF FOOD ADULTERATION ACT, 1954 Section - 2 , 7 , 16


Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - S. 2, 7, 16 - Code of Criminal Procedure,

1973 - S. 378 - acquittal for charges of selling adulterated groundnut oil - public

analyst did not record whether the sample was injurious to health or not - prosecution

did not follow mandatory provisions of the Act - sanction to prosecution found to be

given without application of mind - held, evidence tendered by prosecution has

lacuna - charges not proved against accused - appeal dismissed.

…………………………………………………………………………………………

…………..

GUJARAT HIGH COURT

Hon'ble Judges:Z.K.Saiyed, J.

138. 2010 (0) GLHEL-HC 224083 State Of Gujarat Versus Parsottamdas

Madandas Adara CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 34 of 1998 ; *J.Date :-

NOVEMBER 26, 2010


PREVENTION OF FOOD ADULTERATION ACT, 1954

about://157/37307.ADF

about://157/37310.adf

about://157/37319.adf

about://157/37331.adf

about://303/57316.ADF

about://303/57767.adf

about://303/57316.ADF

about://303/57767.adf

about://157/37307.ADF



Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - S. 378 - Prevention of Food Adulteration Act,

1954 - sample of Mouth Freshener found adulterated - Trial Court observed that there

are serious lacuna in the oral as well as documentary evidence of prosecution -

acquittal - appeal against - it is the say of respondents that said Mouth Freshener is for

household and not for sale - held, prosecution has failed to prove the fact that Mouth

Freshener for sale by leading any cogent evidence - from the evidence itself it was

established that the prosecution had not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt -

Trial Court was completely justified in acquitting the respondents-accused of the

charges levelled against them - Trial Court was absolutely just and proper and in

recording the said findings, no illegality or infirmity had been committed by it -

appeal dismissed.

139. 2010 (0) GLHEL-HC 224085 State Of Gujarat Versus Bashir Ahmad Miya

Ahmad CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 630 of 1993 ; *J.Date :-NOVEMBER 26, 2010




1954 - appeal against acquittal - report of Central Food Laboratory do not suggest that

any prohibited colour was used in preparation of biscuit - Trial Court found that

prosecution has not proved the case against respondent-accused beyond reasonable

doubt and that there are serious lacuna in the oral as well as documentary evidence of

prosecution - held, in acquittal appeal, Appellate Court is not required to re-write the

judgment or to gave fresh reasonings when the Appellate Court was in agreement

with the reasons assigned by the trial Court acquitting the accused - Trial Court was

completely justified in acquitting the respondent-accused of the charges levelled

against them - findings recorded by Trial Court are absolutely just and proper and in

recording the said findings, no illegality or infirmity has been committed by it -

appeal dismissed.

about://303/57316.ADF

about://303/57767.adf

about://157/37307.ADF



140. 2010 (0) GLHEL-HC 224968 State Of Gujarat Versus Chatubhai

Ranchodbhai Gari Criminal Appeal No. 627 of 2010 ; *J.Date : NOVEMBER

24, 2010


PREVENTION OF FOOD ADULTERATION ACT, 1954 Section - 16(1)(A)(1)(2)


1954 - S. 16(1)(A)(1)(2) - adulteration of milk - prosecution alleged that accused was

dealing with adulterated milk - Trial Court convicted accused - on appeal, Appellate

Court acquitted accused - Sessions Court appreciated evidence on record and found

that in analysis report proper percentage of fat of the milk was not explained - while

recording statement under S. 313 of Cr.P.C., questions put to accused were vague and

no proper explanation was obtained and proper opportunity was not given to accused

- held, considering findings of Appellate Court, accused was rightly acquitted - appeal

disposed of.

141.2011 (1) G.L.H. 651Netharsh Base Company & Ors....Applicants Versus

(The) State of Gujarat and Anr.....Respondents Criminal Revision Application

No. 709 of 2004.D/- 15.11.2010.

CRIMINAL LAWS - Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - S. 2(ix)(k) -

Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 - R. 32(b) - Misbranded - Saffron

present in the sample - Saffron not shown on the label of the toffee - Central Food

Laboratory (CFL) report indicated that sample was adulterated as mineral oil was

found - CFL report did not show misbranding - Prosecution was filed for misbranding

and not for adulteration - Once the certificate of the Director of Central Food

Laboratory is received, report of the Public Analyst would stand annulled and cannot

be looked into for any purpose - If saffron is not present in the sample as an

ingredient of the product - Very substratum of the prosecution case that there was

misbranding due to non mentioning of saffron on the label would fall - CFL report

about://303/57316.ADF

about://303/57767.adf

about://157/37307.ADF

about://157/37331.adf



simply states that the sample is adulterated without mentioning as to how the same is

adulterated - No need to face the trial - Applicants discharged.

In the aforesaid background, this Court is of the view that the impugned order passed

by the learned Sessions Judge proceeds on an erroneous footing that to a limited

extent, the report of the Public Analyst can be looked into and secondly, the same

also proceeds on an erroneous footing that non-mentioning of an ingredient on the

label which amounts to misbranding would not require any analysis report in that

regard. The decision of the Apex Court in the case of Calcutta Municipal

Corporation v. Pawan Kumar Saraf and another (supra) categorically holds that the

legal impact of a certificate of the Director of the Central Food Laboratory is

threefold. It annuls or replaces the report of the Public Analyst, which gains finality

regarding the quality and standard of the food article involved in the case and it

becomes irrefutable so far as the facts stated therein are concerned. In the

circumstances, once the certificate of the Director of the Central Food Laboratory is

received, the report of the Public Analyst would stand annulled and cannot be looked

into for any purpose. Moreover, the reasoning adopted by the learned Sessions Judge

that insofar as indicating the name of an ingredient on the label, no question of

analysis of the sample arises is also erroneous. The allegation against the applicants is

that saffron, though being an ingredient of the product in question, is not indicated on

the label. In the report of the Public Analyst, saffron is stated to be positive whereas,

in the certificate of the Central Food Laboratory, the presence of saffron is not

mentioned. Thus, the report of the Central Food Laboratory does not indicate the

presence of saffron in the sample. In the circumstances, if saffron is not present in the

sample, there would be no question of mentioning the same as an ingredient of the

product and as such, the very substratum of case of the respondent that there was

misbranding due to non-mentioning of saffron on the label would fall. (Para 9)

142. 2010 (0) GLHEL-HC 226132 State Of Gujarat Versus Bharat Kumar

Keshavlal Bhatt (Seller) Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 571 of 2010 ;

*J.Date :- MARCH 8, 2010

about:blank#9




PREVENTION OF FOOD ADULTERATION ACT, 1954 Section - 7(1) ,

16(a)(ii)


1954 - S. 7(1), 16(a)(ii) - accused acquitted from charge of sale of

adulterated/misbranded Shrikhand - on findings that Food Inspector who did

formalities of sending, packing and dispatching samples to concerned authority was

not available for trial on account of his demise during pendency of trial and panch did

not support prosecution case - appeal against acquittal - nothing on record to rebut

concrete findings - held, acquittal is just and proper - appeal dismissed.

143. 2010 (0) GLHEL-HC 224557 State Of Gujarat- For And On Behalf Of

J.H.Shah, Food Versus Kiritkumar Gopaldas Kakkad Vendor And Owner And

Anr. Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 13777 of 2009 ;

Criminal Appeal No. 2453 of 2009 ; *J.Date :- MARCH 03, 2010

CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 Section - 378(4)

PREVENTION OF FOOD ADULTERATION ACT, 1954 Section - 11(1)(c)(i)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - S. 378(4) - Prevention of Food Adulteration Act,

1954 - S. 11(1)(c)(i) - complainant purchased Ghee and after dividing it in three equal

parts packed it in three jars and sealed the same in accordance with law - on receiving

the report of the Public Analyst that food article was adulterated, requisite consent

was obtained from the competent authority - held, accused was found to be not liable

to be held guilty - accused was entitled to be acquitted as the prosecution failed in

establishing its case against accused - containers wherein the sample was to be taken

were specifically required to be cleaned and dried by the person collecting the sample

in the presence of Panch witnesses - sample of Ghee had not been collected after

heating it in a given temperature and stirring - sampling procedure was rightly held to

be improper and contrary to the law - it was non-application of mind in respect of

about://303/57316.ADF

about://303/57767.adf

about://157/37307.ADF

about://157/37319.adf

about://157/37331.adf

about://303/57316.ADF

about://303/57767.adf

about://157/37307.ADF

about://157/37324.adf



granting sanction which was actually accorded for mis-branding whereas it was to be

sanctioned for adulteration - order impugned was just and proper - appeal dismissed.

144. 2010 (0) GLHEL-HC 226134 State Of Gujarat Versus Husenali Najaraii

Huda Criminal Appeal No. 87 of 2001 ; *J.Date :- MARCH 3, 2010


PREVENTION OF FOOD ADULTERATION ACT, 1954 Section - 7(1) ,

16(a)(ii) , 20

PREVENTION OF FOOD ADULTERATION RULES, 1955 Rule - 4(4)


1954 - S. 7(1), 16(a)(ii), 20 - Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 - R. 4(4) -

accused acquitted from charge of sale of adulterated ground nut oil - on findings that

provisions of S. 20 had not been complied with inasmuch as competent authority had

to accord its sanction after application of mind and at that time validity of report

which was made basis for according sanction also assumed importance - appeal

against acquittal - sample analyzed by public analyst who had no such authority -

concerned authority did not compare and tally seal in terms of R. 4(4) - consequently,

certificate issued by CFL not reliable - held, sanctioning authority not properly

adverted to factors in terms of R. 4(4) - prosecution case cannot be sustained - appeal

dismissed.

145. 2010 (0) GLHEL-HC 225425 Narendra B.Vyas Versus Popatbhai

Ishwarbhai Patel Criminal Appeal No. 303 of 2002 ; *J.Date :- FEBRUARY 22,

2010


PREVENTION OF FOOD ADULTERATION ACT, 1954 Section - 7 , 16



1954 - S. 7, 16 - Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 - R. 14 - sample of

about://303/57316.ADF

about://303/57767.adf

about://157/37307.ADF

about://157/37319.adf

about://157/37331.adf

about://157/37336.adf

about://157/37346.ADF

about://157/37369.adf

about://303/57316.ADF

about://303/57767.adf

about://157/37307.ADF

about://157/37319.adf

about://157/37331.adf

about://157/37346.ADF

about://157/37387.adf



chilly powder found adulterated - appeal against acquittal of accused - Trial Court has

clearly recorded a finding that there were four methods to detect the colouring matter

from the Chilly powder but except microscopic test there no other test was being

carried out - Trial Court further found that prosecution has not followed the provision

of R. 14 of the Rules - panch witnesses were examined by Trial Court, who have not

supported the prosecution case - held, prosecution has not proved its case beyond

reasonable doubt - Trial Court was completely justified in acquitting respondent 1 of

the charges leveled against him - appeal dismissed.

146. 2010 (0) GLHEL-HC 224992 Sudhakar Govindrao Majmudar Versus

Mayur Kantilal Shah Criminal Appeal No. 562 of 2002 ; *J.Date :- FEBRUARY

18, 2010

CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 Section - 378(1) , 378(3)

PREVENTION OF FOOD ADULTERATION ACT, 1954 Section - 13(2) , 19(2) ,

20

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - S. 378(1), (3) - Prevention of Food Adulteration

Act, 1954 - S. 13(2), 19(2), 20 - sample of Groundnut oil - Public Analyst found that

the sample was not up to the standard as prescribed under the provisions of the

Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the same was adulterated - after considering

the oral as well as documentary evidence learned Magistrate acquitted respondent -

appeal - held, where two views were possible, Appellate Court should not interfere

with the finding of acquittal recorded by the court below - sanction to prosecute u/s.

20 was without the application of mind - prosecution had not followed the provisions

of S. 13(2) and 19(2) of the Act - when the main ingredients were not followed by the

prosecution, then prosecution had no right to say that Trial Court had committed an

error in disbelieving the case of the prosecution - appeal dismissed.

147. 2010 (0) GLHEL-HC 224688 Sanjay Ratilal Shah Versus State Of Gujarat

CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION No. 240 of 2000 ; *J.Date :-

FEBRUARY 17, 2010

about://303/57316.ADF

about://303/57767.adf

about://303/57767.adf

about://157/37307.ADF

about://157/37326.adf

about://157/37335.adf

about://157/37336.adf



CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 Section - 216 , 217 , 397 , 401




Act, 1954 - S. 7, 16 - Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 - R. 14 - sale of

misbranded and adulterated turmeric powder - accused convicted and sentenced to

undergo RI for two years with fine of Rs. 3000 and in default of payment of fine,

further RI for six months - legality and validity of - there was no evidence to come to

conclusion that sample bottles were cleaned at time when sample was collected

therein - held, non-compliance of mandatory requirements laid down under PFA

Rules - great prejudice was caused to applicant when charge was altered - therefore,

acquittal order rendered by Trial Court confirmed.

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - S. 216, 217 - power of Court to alter or add to

any charge at any time before judgment being pronounced - held, if alteration or

addition to the charge was such, which would prejudice accused, Court may either

direct a new trial or adjourn trial for such period as may be necessary - whenever

charge is altered or added to by Court after commencement of trial, prosecutor and

accused shall be allowed to recall witnesses - revision application allowed.

148. 2009 (0) GLHEL-HC 222315 Vimalkant Kanchanlal Taylor Food Inspector

Versus Ghelabhai Sajanbhai Bharwad Criminal Appeal No. 1034 of 1998 ;

*J.Date :- NOVEMBER 05, 2009

PREVENTION OF FOOD ADULTERATION ACT, 1954 Section - 13(1)

Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - S. 13(1) - acquittal only on the ground

that analysis reports submitted in evidence were not signed on the day they were

prepared - appeal - held, correctness of the report of Public Analyst cannot be ignored

without examining the Public Analyst as a witness either by the Court or accused -

Trial Court had committed serious error while passing the impugned order -

impugned order set aside - appeal allowed.

about://303/57316.ADF

about://303/57577.adf

about://303/57578.adf

about://303/57787.adf

about://303/57791.adf

about://157/37307.ADF

about://157/37319.adf

about://157/37331.adf

about://157/37346.ADF

about://157/37387.adf

about://157/37307.ADF

about://157/37326.adf



149.2009 (3) G.L.H. 616 Ashwinbhai H. Acharya ....Appellant Versus Jayeshbhai

Madhubhai Madhubhai Chevadawala and Another ....Respondents Criminal

Appeal No. 1096 of 2009.

An appeal challenging the judgment and order dt. 18-11-2008 passed by the learned

JMFC, Rajkot in Food Criminal Case No. 179 of 1999, where by respondent was

acquitted of the charge of offences punishable u/Ss. 7 & 16 of the Prevention of Food

Adulteration Act., 1954.

CRIMINAL LAWS - Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - S. 20 -Grant of

consent for prosecution - Status of 'consent' cannot be elevated to

'Sanction' - The spirit and purpose of the act cannot be overlooked - Written consent

is sufficient and specific offence need not be mentioned in the consent.

The appellant - Food Inspector of Rajkot Municipal Corporation has challenged the

judgment and order dated 18.11.2008 of learned JMFC, Rajkot in Food Criminal

Case No. 179 of 1999. whereby the respondent was acquitted of the charge of

offences punishable under Sections 7 and 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration

Act, 1954 (for short "the Act"), only on the ground that the consent or sanction

granted for initiating the prosecution was without application of mind. The only thing

against the consent under Section 20 of the Act was that incorrect rule was mentioned

in the order and that issue was admittedly directly covered by judgment of this Court

in State of Gujarat v. Imtiyaz Haji Abdul Sattar [1997 Criminal Law Journal 4242],

wherein it is categorically held that the consent order under Section 20 of the Act

need not record any reason for granting consent for prosecution. The consent

envisaged in the provisions of Section 20 of the Act as condition precedent to

prosecution is a written consent for instituting the prosecution under the Act and not a

consent for prosecuting the accused for a specific offence. However, in the facts of

the present case, the order granting consent (Ex.50) clearly mentioned Sections

2(ix)(k) and Rule 32(e) in the last column of the form indicating the alleged offence

and also recorded discussion with the complainant to indicate proper application of



mind. Apart from that, it may be erroneous to elevate the status of consent to that of

sanction and defeat the prosecution, in view of the spirit and purpose of the Act as

also the spirit and purpose of the provisions of Section 465 of Cr.P.C, by finding out

one or the other error or omission in the letter of consent. Reference in that regard

may be had to State of Gujarat v. Chandraprakash K. Sindhi [1999 F.A.J 383]. Any

lapse, error or omission in mentioning the Section or Rule for the violation of which

prosecution was authorized could not be a ground for acquitting the accused person.

Therefore, the impugned judgment is illegal and erroneous to that extent. (Para 1)

150. 2009 (0) GLHEL-HC 221084 State Of Gujarat Versus Govindbhai

Revachand Dulani Criminal Appeal No. 183 of 1996 ; *J.Date : FEBRUARY 10,

2009


PREVENTION OF FOOD ADULTERATION RULES, 1955


Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - S. 7, 16 - Prevention of Food

Adulteration Rules, 1955 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - S. 378 - sample of

ground-nut oil did not conform to the standards and provisions lay down under the

Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules - Ld. Magistrate recorded acquittal of

respondent-accused solely on the ground that report of the Public Analyst was signed

by Public Analyst later on and not on the date on which the sample was analyzed - it

was observed that the analysis was made by the Public Analyst on 20/12/1986, but

the report was prepared and signed on 24/12/1986 - held, correctness of the report of

Public Analyst could not be ignored without examining the Public Analyst as a

witness either by the Court or the accused - in this view of the matter, it was

apparently clear that Trial Court had committed serious error while passing the

impugned judgment and order - accused for the offence punishable u/s. 16 r/w S. 7 of

the Act was hereby set aside and matter remanded to Trial Court - appeal allowed.

about:blank#1

about://157/37307.ADF

about://157/37319.adf

about://157/37331.adf

about://157/37346.ADF

about://303/57316.ADF

about://303/57767.adf



151. 2009 (1) G.L.H. 540Loknath Bhattacharya Managing Director and Anr.

...Applicants Versus State of Gujarat and Anr. .... Respondents Criminal Misc.

Application No. 1473 of 1998

A petition u/s. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing and setting

aside the proceedings initiated under Criminal Case No. 217 of 1995 in the Court of

learned Judicial Magistrate First Class at Rajpipla, Dist. Bharuch with regard to the

offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioners for violation of Section

2(ix)(k) and Rules 32(e) and Sections 7(ii)(v) and 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of

Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and Rules, 1955.

[A] Criminal Laws - Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - S. 2(ix)(k), S. 7(ii)(v) and S.

17(2) - Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 - R. 32(e) - Whether the Directors are liable to

be prosecuted for the alleged offence - Held; when the person is nominated under

sub-sec.(2) of Sec. 17 of the Food Adulteration Act - No prosecution can be filed

against the Directors of the company - No process can be issued against the Directors

of the company.

Apart from the above, in the facts of this case, under sub-section (2) of Section 17 of

the Act, the petitioner company had nominated one Mr.Ashutosh Maity, Factory

Superintendent of the Company by passing resolution on 25.01.1993 and the same

was duly communicated therefore, there was no justification for filing complaint

against the petitioner company involving the Managing Director and other directors.

Therefore, the complaint deserves to be quashed and set aside on this ground also.

(Para 21)

[B] Criminal Laws - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - S. 482 - When the

Magistrate issued the process against the Director of the company even a person is

nominated under Sub-Sec. (2) of Sec. 17 of the Food Adulteration Act, - Issuance of

the process by Magistrate; whether such process deserves to be quashed under Sec.

482 of the CrPC - Held, no prima facie case is made out against the Directors of the

Company in view of nomination filed by the Company informing the resolution of the

about:blank#21



company to the concern authority under Sub-Sec. (2) of Sec. 17 of the Food

Adulteration Act - Process is quashed.

8) So far as the contention of non-obstinate clause viz. sub-section (4) of Section 17

of the Act, as relied by the learned APP, the bracketed portion excludes the persons

nominated under sub-section (2) of Section 17 of the Act and therefore, the

contention of learned APP that sub-section (4) of Section 17 overrides other preceded

sections, cannot be accepted. At the same time, sub-section (4) of Section 17 of the

Act begins with a phrase "notwithstanding ... it is proved" and, therefore, when at the

threshold requirement of sub-section (2) of Section 17 is fulfilled coupled with the

fact that there are no specific averments in the complaint qua the Managing Director

and Director that they were in-charge of day today conduct of the business and

responsible for alleged commission of crime under the Act, I do not see any

justification to permit the concerned Magistrate to proceed further with the

proceedings impugned in this petition. A case is made out by the petitioners to

exercise powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 since the

complaint and the process issued subsequently do not contain allegations prima facie

if examined on the face value attracting ingredients of the offences and for the

reasons stated herein above, the impugned complaint is required to be quashed and set

aside. (Para 22)

[C] Criminal Laws - Vicarious Liability - Whether the Director are vicariously liable

for the criminal offence committed by the employees of the Company - Held, in the

complaint specific averments and contentions are required to be made against the

Directors of the Company about their role - In absence of specific allegations against

the Directors of a Company no prosecution can be filed.

It is clear that right from the case of State of Punjab v. Devinder Kumar reported in

AIR 1983 SC 545, about principle of vicarious liability in criminal offence vis-a-vis

company and its personnel including the directors and requirement of necessary and

specific averments or contentions about commission of offence and in the above

context if the complaint is perused, only averment against the present petitioners is

about:blank#22



that they are Managing Director and Director of the petitioner company and nothing

beyond that. Therefore, the complaint lacks necessary ingredients and averments with

regard to commission of alleged offence and issuance of process by the Magistrate is

nothing but arbitrary exercise of power and contrary to the procedure. (Para 20)

152. 2009 (0) GLHEL-HC 221078 Kantibhai Motibhai Limbachiya Versus

Ganeshlal Ambalal Soni Criminal Appeal No. 264 of 1998 ; *J.Date :-

JANUARY 28, 2009




1954 - S. 7, 16 - adulteration of food articles - acquittal order passed on the ground

that report was signed by Public Analyst later on and not on the date on which sample

was analyzed - held, correctness of report of Public Analyst cannot be ignored

without examining Public Analyst as witness either by Court or accused - Trial Court

has apparently committed serious error while passing impugned judgment and order -

impugned judgment and order rendered by Ld. Magistrate recording acquittal of

accused for offence punishable under S. 16 r/w 7 of Act is set aside - matter

remanded to Trial Court for fresh hearing - appeal allowed.

153. 2008 (0) GLHEL-HC 226578 State Of Gujarat Versus Gordhanbhai

Jasmatbhai

Criminal Appeal No. 926 of 1999 ; *J.Date :- DECEMBER 29, 2008

CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 Section - 378(1) , 378(3)

PREVENTION OF FOOD ADULTERATION ACT, 1954 Section - 7(1) , 7(5)

PREVENTION OF FOOD ADULTERATION RULES, 1955 Rule - 42(m)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - S. 378(1), (3) - Prevention of Food Adulteration

Act, 1954 - S. 7(1), 7(5) - Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 - R. 42(m) -

appeal against acquittal - sanction to prosecute - ld. Magistrate acquitted accused on

about:blank#20

about://303/57316.ADF

about://303/57767.adf

about://157/37307.ADF

about://157/37319.adf

about://157/37331.adf

about://303/57316.ADF

about://303/57767.adf

about://303/57767.adf

about://157/37307.ADF

about://157/37319.adf

about://157/37319.adf

about://157/37346.ADF

about://157/37426.adf



the ground that officer who accorded sanction had no authority to accord sanction -

held, ld. Magistrate rightly acquitted accused for want of valid sanction - appeal

dismissed.

153.2008 (0) GLHEL-HC 220802 State Of Gujarat Versus Shantilal Mangilal

Shah Criminal Appeal No. 660 of 1999 ; *J.Date :- DECEMBER 04, 2008

PREVENTION OF FOOD ADULTERATION ACT, 1954 Section - 7(i) ,

16(1)(a)(i)


EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 Section - 114

Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - S. 7(i), 16(1)(a)(i) - Prevention of Food

Adulteration Rules, 1955 - R. 4(3) - Evidence Act, 1872 - S. 114 - sample of edible

groundnut oil found adulterated - appropriate weightage was required to be given to

the report of CFL and no formal proof by examining the analyst was legally required

- CFL report shows that the sample was received in sealed condition but how and in

what manner the same was dispatched has not been brought on record - Ld. Trial

Judge has therefore given advantage to all the three accused by acquitting them - no

perversity or illegality in the findings recorded by the Ld. Trial Judge - appeal

dismissed.

154. 2008 (0) GLHEL-HC 220782 State Of Gujarat Versus Jitendrakumar

Dhirajlal Sojitra (Vendor Of Manufacturing Firm)

Criminal Appeal No. 1127 of 2003 ; *J.Date :- NOVEMBER 21, 2008


PREVENTION OF FOOD ADULTERATION ACT, 1954 Section - 2(1A) ,

2(A)(M) , 7(1) , 7(5) , 11(c) , 16

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - S. 378 - prevention of Food Adulteration Act,

1954 - S. 2(1A), 2(A)(M), 7(1), 7(5), 11(c), 16 - acquittal appeal - sample of

groundnut oil - as per the report of analysis, sample did not confirm to the standards -

Ld. Judge held that as per the provisions contained in S. 11(c)(1), complainant had

not informed the Local Health Authority about sending the sample to public analyst

about://157/37307.ADF

about://157/37319.adf

about://157/37331.adf

about://157/37346.ADF

about://157/37369.adf

about://14/1096.ADF

about://14/1235.adf

about://303/57316.ADF

about://303/57767.adf

about://157/37307.ADF

about://157/37310.adf

about://157/37310.adf

about://157/37319.adf

about://157/37319.adf

about://157/37324.adf

about://157/37331.adf



for analysis and therefore, accused respondents are required to be acquitted - as the

breach of the mandatory provision is committed, benefit of same is required to be

given to respondents - held, infirmities in the prosecution case go to the root of the

matter and strike a vital blow on the prosecution case - no interference with the

findings of learned Magistrate - appeal dismissed.

155. 2008(0)GLHEL-HC221499 Special Civil Application No. 8044 of 2008 ;

8062 of 2008 ; *J.Date :- JUNE 11, 2008

PREVENTION OF FOOD ADULTERATION ACT, 1954 Section - 2(v)

Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - S. 2(v) - definition of "food" -

petitioners carrying on business activities of filtering/ purifying water and selling

drinking water in bottles (kerba) - respondent Municipal Corporation sealing the

factory premises without giving sufficient time or notice and by issuing notice of only

24 hours - petitioners have assailed the action of the respondent Corporation on plea

that their activity cannot be said to be an activity of marketing "packaged water" -

respondent Corporation contented that it is its responsibility to ensure public health

hygiene and safety which authorises it to take appropriate preventive measures - held,

petitioners are obliged to satisfy the authorities regarding quality of the water -

without undertaking such exercise and without satisfying itself about the quality of

the water, respondent Corporation ought to have been slow in proceeding to seal the

premises particularly in the manner in which it has been done in the present cases

which have now rendered the petitioners in such a situation that they are not even

able to draw samples for getting it tested - petitioners directed to file an undertaking

before this Court as well as the respondent Corporation that unless and until the

certificate from Health Department and the fitness certificate issued by Public Health

Laboratory and respondent Corporation or any Government approved and reputed

Public Health Laboratory as regards the quality of the water is obtained and submitted

to the respondent Corporation, the business activities would remain suspended -

petition disposed of.

about://157/37307.ADF

about://157/37310.adf



156. 2008 (0) GLHEL-HC 220626State Of Gujarat Versus Champalal Gekchand

Parekh Criminal Appeal No. 706 of 1998 ; *J.Date :- MARCH 14, 2008

PREVENTION OF FOOD ADULTERATION ACT, 1954 Section - 13(2B) , 7(1)

, 7(5) , 16(1)


Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - S. 7(1), (5), 13(2B), 16(1) - appeal

against acquittal - cooking oil from packed tin of "Flamingo" brand - purchased by

Food Inspector - analysis by CFL - found adulterated - report of CFL was prepared

after 38 days - provisions of S. 13(2B) mandatory in nature prescribes time limit of

one month - held, violation of mandatory provisions of S. 13(2B) - prosecution has

failed to produce evidence to prove that provisions of mandatory rules have been

followed - no interference with the findings of Trial Court - appeal dismissed.

157. 2008 (0) GLHEL-HC 221316 State Of Gujarat Versus Laghadhirbhai

Vaghjibhai Prajapati Criminal Appeal No. 438 of 1996 ; *J.Date :- MARCH 12,

2008


PREVENTION OF FOOD ADULTERATION ACT, 1954 Section - 7 , 16(1)



1954 - S. 7, 16(1) - Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 - R. 14 - appeal in

case of acquittal - collection of sample of groundnut oil from the shop of respondent -

found to be adulterated - held, mere statement of the Food Inspector that the sample

was collected in clean and dry bottle, would not amount to sufficient compliance of

Rule 14 - it should be proved by leading cogent and positive evidence - manner in

which sample was taken prejudiced the accused - requirements laid down in Rule 14

are mandatory and non-compliance of same would amount to acquittal of the accused

from the offence charged under the Act - no interference with order of acquittal -

appeal dismissed

about://157/37307.ADF

about://157/37326.adf

about://157/37319.adf

about://157/37319.adf

about://157/37319.adf

about://157/37331.adf

about://303/57316.ADF

about://303/57767.adf

about://303/57316.ADF

about://303/57767.adf

about://157/37307.ADF

about://157/37319.adf

about://157/37331.adf

about://157/37346.ADF

about://157/37387.adf



158. 2008(1)G.L.H631J. C. UPADHYAYA, J. State of Gujarat ....Appellant

Versus Prajapati Amratlal Natvarlal ....Respondent Criminal Appeal No. 753 of

1996*D/- 08.02.2008

[A] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - S. 378 - Appeal - Appellate Court should

bear in mind that (1) generally it would not interfere with an order of acquittal unless

it is found that the judgment of the trial Court is palpably wrong, manifestly

erroneous or demonstrably unsustainable, perverse or contrary to the material on

record, - (2) Where two views are possible - The view which is favourable to the

accused should be adopted.

....As held in the case of Ramesh Babubhai Doshi v. State of Gujarat reported in

(1996) 9 S.C.C. 225, the appellate Court generally would not interfere with an order

of acquittal unless it is found that the judgment of the trial Court is palpably wrong,

manifestly erroneous or demonstrably unsustainable, perverse or contrary to the

material on record. Further as laid down in the case of Kaliram v. State of Himachal

Pradesh reported in AIR 1973 S.C. 2773 where two views are possible on the

evidence adduced in the case, one leading to the guilt of the accused and the other to

his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted.

Bearing in mind the above principles, this Court is required to decide whether the

respondent accused has been rightly acquitted of the charges of the offences

punishable under section 16 read with section 7 of the Act. (Para 5)

[B] Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 - R. 16(b) - Manner of Packing and Sealing the

samples - Requirement laid down therein - Mandatory - Violation thereof - Vitiate the

entire trial.

...requirement contemplated under rule 16(b) of the Rules is a mandatory requirement

and further held that if mandatory requirement is not followed, then obviously benefit

is required to be given to the accused.... (Para 6)

....the requirement laid down under rule 16 are mandatory and the violation of the

provisions vitiate the entire trial. Provisions contained under rule 16 are held to be

about:blank#5

about:blank#6



mandatory and non-compliance by Food Inspector creates doubt about the case of the

prosecution and the benefit should go to the accused.... (Para 6.1)

[C] Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - S. 13(2-B) - Food Adulteration

Rules, 1955 - R. 4 - Comparing the seals of container and outer cover with specimen

impression received separately - Provisions contemplated under are mandatory and

non-compliance vitiate the trial and would make the report of CFL inadmissible.

Learned counsel Mr. Modi relied upon a decision rendered in the case of C C

Christian v. P S Parmar reported in 1992 (1) G.L.R. p.434. Perusing the aforesaid

decision, it appears that accused in said case was convicted for offence punishable

under section 16 read with section 7 of the Act. In said case, on the basis of evidence

on record and considering the note in the CFL report and relying upon rule 4 (4) of

the Rules, it was observed that it is mandatory on the part of the Director of CFL to

compare the seals on the container and the outer cover of the packet. That

requirement is mandatory. In para. 13 of said judgment, it was observed that the

provision contained in rule 4(4) of the Rules is a special safeguard and this special

safeguard the accused will lose when the specimen impression of the seal sent to the

Director separately is not compared by him before the analysis of the sample.

Comparison of the seal assumes greater significance in cases under the Prevention of

Food Adulteration Act. Ultimately, it was observed as under :-

".... I have no doubt in my mind that all provisions of law which relate to it and which

confer even the smallest safeguard on the accused must be construed strictly and not

liberally. In my opinion, therefore, non-comparison of the seal as stated above has

affected the evidentiary value of the Certificate issued by the Director, Central Food

Laboratory and thus, the conviction based upon it cannot be sustained." (Para 7.2)

Learned counsel Mr. Modi relied upon a decision rendered in the case of Laxmichand

Bhailal Thakker v. State of Gujarat reported in 1995 (2) G.L.R. 1528 wherein also

referring rule 4 of the Rules, this Court held that the provisions contemplated under

about:blank#6.1

about:blank#7.2



this rule are mandatory and non-compliance vitiates the trial against the accused.

(Para 7.3)

In the decision rendered in the case of State of Gujarat v. G B Mansuri reported in

2005 (3) G.L.H. 409 it was held that rule 4 of the Rules read with section 13 (2-B) of

the Act contemplate mandatory requirements and the non-compliance thereof would

make the report of CFL inadmissible. (Para 7.4)

[D] Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 - R. 14 - Manner of Sending Samples -

Requirement laid down is mandatory - Prosecution should lead positive evidence of

due compliance thereof.

....the requirement laid down under rule 14 is a mandatory requirement and it is to be

completely complied with....

...That the prosecution should adduce positive evidence as to whether the bottles or

jars or other suitable containers were either cleaned by the Food Inspector or were

cleaned under his supervision. (Para 10)

[E] Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - S. 20 - Sanction - Mechanical grant

of sanction cannot be said to be a sanction with active application of mind.

....bare words that all the papers were placed before the authority, would not be

sufficient for holding that the authority had applied mind before granting sanction.

That mechanical grant of sanction cannot be said to be a sanction with active

application of mind.... (Para 12)

159.2007(2)G.L.H.637 SMT. ABHILASHA KUMARI, J. State of Gujarat

....Appellant Versus Doshi Chhabildas Shivlal and Ors. ....Respondents Criminal

Appeal No 107 of 1992 *D/- 30.07.2007

[A] Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - S. 14 - Sanction to prosecute - Trial

Court acquitted accused on one of the grounds of sanction being invalid as it does not

mention the specie of 'adulteration' enumerated in clauses 2(ia)(a) to (m) of the Act

about:blank#7.3

about:blank#7.4

about:blank#10

about:blank#12



and also it did not contain reasons - Reversing the finding, held that there was full

application of mind by the competent authority and there is no need to mention

clauses of S. 2 in it - Further held that the competent authority while granting sanction

performs administrative duty and not quasi judicial and is not required to give

detailed reasons - Though finding is reversed, the acquittal is confirmed on another

ground - Appeal dismissed.

The first ground on which the learned Magistrate has acquitted the respondents is that

the consent accorded by the competent authority for the prosecution of respondents

No.1 to 7 is not valid in law inasmuch as it does not mention the specie of

`adulteration' enumerated in clause 2(ia)(a) to (m) of the Act and also does not

contain reasons for grant of sanction, which, in the opinion of the learned Magistrate,

shows non-application of mind....

x x x

A bare reading of this section indicates that before allowing a prosecution for an

offence under the Act, not being an act under S. 14 or S. 14A of the Act, the condition

precedent is that written consent of the Central Government or the State Government

or the person authorised in this behalf by general or special order by the appropriate

Government is mandatory. In the present case, it is not disputed that the Assistant

Director and Local Health Authority, which has accorded the sanction for

prosecution, has been designated as the competent authority in this regard. A perusal

of the consent reproduced hereinabove makes it clear that the competent authority has

carefully gone through the papers and other relevant documents of the case including

the report of the Public Analyst recording that sample of groundnut oil is found to be

adulterated and after being satisfied that the respondents No.1 to 7 have contravened

the provisions of Section 7, punishable under Section 16 of the Act, has accorded

sanction for their prosecution. The competent authority has clearly applied its mind to

the facts constituting the offence after perusing the relevant documents and on being

satisfied that the provisions of law have been contravened, has accorded sanction for

prosecution of the respondents. Not mentioning the clauses of S. 2 or sub-sections of



S. 7 of the Act would not render the grant of sanction invalid in law. The competent

authority, while granting sanction for prosecution, is performing administrative duties

and not quasi-judicial ones and at that stage it is not required that detailed reasons be

given in support of the grant of sanction. It will suffice if the consent letter according

sanction for prosecution shows that the competent authority has applied its mind to

the relevant documents before it and only after being satisfied that a prima facie case

exists, sanction for prosecution is accorded.... (Para 15)

[B] Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 - R. 14 - Non-compliance thereof -

Trial Court found that while taking the sample of oil, the steel jug with which the

sample was taken was not proved to be clean - Benefit of doubt granted to accused -

In appeal against acquittal, held that there is not iota of evidence to prove that steel

jug was cleaned before sample was taken - General Statement that the helper used to

clean the jug and the bottles is not helpful and helper is also not examined - It has

come in evidence that before taking sample in question, Food Inspector took another

sample of oil from another shop - Held benefit of doubt rightly given to accused -

Acquittal confirmed - Appeal dismissed.

The second ground for acquitting the respondents recorded by the learned Magistrate,

is that there is no evidence on record that the steel jug in which the sample of

groundnut oil was drawn before being poured into the glass bottles was cleaned and if

so, by whom, therefore, the respondents deserve to be given benefit of doubt....

x x x

It is evident from a bare reading of the rule ... that the samples of food taken for the

purpose of analysis shall be taken in "clean dry bottles or jars or in other suitable

containers". The language in which this Rule is couched makes it clear that its

provisions are mandatory in nature and a duty is cast upon the prosecution not only to

comply with its provisions by using clean and dry bottles for storing the sample but

also to lead evidence in the Trial Court that the bottles or jars or containers so used

were clean and dry. If there is non-compliance of the Rule, it would constitute a clear

about:blank#15



violation, giving rise to benefit of doubt in favour of the accused. In the present case,

the evidence of the Food Inspector clearly indicates that just before taking the sample

of groundnut oil in question from a sealed tin lying in the shop of the respondent

No.1, into a steel jug, he had used the steel jug to take another sample of oil from

another shop. He has stated that he does not remember which brand of oil he took as a

sample in the previous case. He has also stated in his testimony that the steel jug was

brought from his office and that his Helper used to clean the jug and bottles used for

taking samples. There is not an iota of evidence to prove that the steel jug was

cleaned before taking the sample of groundnut oil from the shop of the respondent

No.1. The general statement that the Helper used to clean the jug and the bottles is not

at all helpful, since it has not been stated that the said jug and bottles were actually

cleaned before the sample was taken. Neither the Peon nor the Helper of the

complainant - Food Inspector have been examined in this regard. This aspect assumes

significance in the light of the fact that the steel jug was used for taking another

sample of oil from another shop, just prior to taking the sample of oil from the shop

of the respondent No.1. What type of oil was taken from the previous shop has not

been disclosed by the complainant. Moreover, there is no evidence to prove that after

taking the first sample and before taking the sample of groundnut oil from the shop of

the respondent No.1, the jug was cleaned. It cannot be ruled out that the presence of

Castor oil in the sample of groundnut oil as found in the report of the Public Analyst,

may be attributable to the previous sample of oil taken by the Food Inspector. Even

the Panchnama does not state that the steel jug was cleaned before taking the sample

and the Panch witness also does not support the case of the prosecution. He has stated

that his signature was obtained on a document which had already been prepared. Seen

in this light, there is sufficient room for doubt that the mandatory requirements of

Rule 14 have not been complied with.

The language of R. 14 mandates that the sample of food for the purpose of analysis

shall be taken in clean dry bottles or jars or in other suitable containers which shall be

properly closed and sealed. Not only should the bottles be clean and dry but this

requirement also extends to the jars or containers in which the sample is taken. The



purpose of the enactment of the Rule is to ensure that the bottles, jars and containers

used for taking a food sample for analysis should be clean and dry, so as to prevent

any contamination of the food sample. It, therefore, stands to reason that the

containers or vessels used in the process of taking the food sample (in this case a steel

jug) should be clean and dry. Moreover, there should be clear and convincing

evidence on record to this effect, otherwise, the provisions of R. 14 would be

rendered nugatory. In the present case, the prosecution has not established that the

steel jug was cleaned after taking the previous sample and before taking the sample of

groundnut oil from the shop of the respondent No.1 by leading cogent evidence to

this effect. On the basis of the evidence on record, the possibility cannot be ruled out

that the steel jug in which the sample was taken before being transferred into the glass

bottles was contaminated with some other substance, and the respondents, therefore,

deserve to be given the benefit of doubt in this regard. The learned Magistrate has,

therefore, rightly recorded a finding of acquittal in favour of the respondents on this

ground. (Para 16)

160.2007 (0) AIJ-SC 39475 State Of Gujarat Versus Shaileshbhai Mansukhlal

Shah

Criminal Appeal No. 38 of 2001 ;Criminal Appeal No. 39 of 2001 ; *J.

Date :- MAY 30, 2007

PREVENTION OF FOOD ADULTERATION ACT, 1954 Section - 7(i) , 7(v) ,

13(2)


Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - S. 7(i), 7(v), 13(2) - Prevention of Food

Adulteration Rules, 1955 - R. 4(6) - adulteration of food - criminal proceedings

against respondent initiated - during pendency, respondent filing an application for

second analysis of samples by CFL - application allowed by Judicial Magistrate and

directed the respondents to deposit the fee prescribed under R. 4(6) of Rules for issue

of certificate by CFL - respondents neither deposited the said direction for deposit of

about:blank#16

about://157/37307.ADF

about://157/37319.adf

about://157/37319.adf

about://157/37326.adf

about://157/37346.ADF

about://157/37369.adf



the fee - one year later, respondents raising an objection that having regard to

provisions of the Act and Rules they were not required to deposit any fee for second

analysis - objection rejected - in revision, session affirmed the order - High Court by

impugned order set aside concurrent finding of Courts below and held that it is the

obligation of State or Local Authority to subject the sample to analysis under S. 13(2)

and there was no obligation on accused to bear or pay fee - held, in view of

amendments of S. 13(2) and R. 4(6) respondent liable to make the payment of

prescribed fee - appeal allowed.

161.2007 (0) GLHEL-HC 219756 State Of Gujarat Versus Ratilal Ashabhai

Patel

Criminal Appeal No. 927 of 1996 ; *J.Date :- FEBRUARY 2, 2007


PREVENTION OF FOOD ADULTERATION ACT, 1954 Section - 20



1954 - S. 20 - Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 - R. 14 - sanction for

prosecution - food article being adulterated as per the opinion of the Public Analyst in

its report - duty of prosecution not only to use clean vessel for collecting sample but

to establish that they complied with R. 14 - such function could not be discharged by

person and or officer who had not been substantially appointed and was merely

holding the charge of the post of the authority which was empowered to accord

sanction - Food Inspector admitted that he was merely holding charge of post and

there was no notification or authority issued by competent authority showing that

Food Inspector who granted sanction was duly authorised - no interference called for

acquittal - appeal dismissed.

162. 2007(2)G.L.H.249D. H. WAGHELA, J. State of Gujarat ....Applicant

Versus Uttamchand Hathichand Shah and Others....Respondents Criminal

about://303/57316.ADF

about://303/57767.adf

about://157/37307.ADF

about://157/37336.adf

about://157/37346.ADF

about://157/37387.adf



Revision Application No. 330 of 1998 With Criminal Revision Application No.

328 of 1998 With Criminal Revision Application No. 332 of 1998 With

Criminal Revision Application No. 382 of 1998 With Criminal Revision

Application No. 396 of 1998 With Criminal Revision Application No. 401 of

1998 With Criminal Revision Application No. 627 of 1998* D/- 24.11.2006

Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - S. 13(1) - Doctrine of prospective over

ruling - After following orders & judgments of this Court, Trial Court had discharged

the accused on the ground that the analysis reports submitted in evidence were not

signed on the day they were prepared - Those judgments and orders examined by

Division Bench upon reference made to it and the reference was answered by the

Division Bench in the case reported in 2000 (4) GLR 2884 holding that report of

public analyst cannot be ignored without examining the public analyst on the issue -

Decision of Division Bench came to light only after the discharge of accused -

Contention that the decision of Division Bench apply prospectively and not

retrospectively negatived - Held that the interpretation of a provision relates back to

the law itself and cannot be prospective.

It is not the case of the respondents that, while answering the question referred to it,

the Division Bench had anywhere even remotely indicated that the legal proposition

settled by it would only have prospective application. It is well-settled that the

interpretation of a provision relates back to the law itself and cannot be prospective.

When the court decides that the interpretation earlier given to a particular provision

was not legal, it declares the law as it stood right from the beginning as per its

decision.... (Para 4)

Thus, the later Division Bench Judgment of this court in Vishramdas Virumal could

not have been taken note of in Arvind Kumar Trikamlal Raval and the later judgment

of this Court in Naranbhai Samji Patel also has not taken note of the aforesaid

Division Bench judgment. In view of the later judgment of the Supreme Court in

Sarwan Kumar, after referring to L.C. Golak Nath which was relied upon by this

Court in Arvind Kumar Trikamlal Raval, and in absence of any indication in the

about:blank#4



Division Bench judgment, the doctrine of prospective overruling could not be applied

in the facts of the present cases so as to uphold the impugned orders prematurely

discharging the accused. Even if the court were to have any discretion which could be

exercised in favour of the accused persons, there is no ground to exercise such

discretion. (Para 7)

163. 2006 (1) G.L.H. 83K.A. PUJ, J. Yogesh Babubhai Trivedi and Ors.

...PetitionerVersusK.V. Dabhi, Food Inspector and Ors. ...Respondents

Criminal Misc. Application No. 5741 of 2004 With

Criminal Misc. Application No. 5742-48 of 2004* Dt./- 20.10.2005

*Petition filed under Section 482 of CRPC, for quashing of 8 Criminal Cases against

the petitioner, being Criminal Case No. 5791/02 pending before Learned CJM,

Bhavnagar, Criminal Case No. 1460/2002 pending before Learned JMFC, Talaja,

Criminal Case No. 16/02, pending before Learned CJM, Nadiad, Criminal Case No.

907/02 pending before Learned JMFC, Botad, Criminal Case No. 1190/02 pending

before Learned JMFC, Palitana, Criminal Case No.1286/02 pending before Learned

JMFC, Mahuva, and Criminal Case No. 1189/02, pending before Learned JMFC,

Palitana, and process issued therein.

Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - S. 17(4) - Offences by companies - In

absence of specific allegations in the complaint that offence was committed with the

consent/connivance/negligence of the accused, complaint not maintainable - When

sanction is granted mechanically by the authority without application of mind and

after gross inordinate and unexplained delay of four years, prosecution cannot sustain

- Moreover, complaint qua the manufacturer and its Directors is already quashed by

High Court and also accepted by the prosecution - Hence, complaint qua the

distributors of packed and sealed tins of the article in question require to be quashed -

Complaints quashed with a liberty to the Trial Court to exercise its powers under S.

319 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

about:blank#7



...When the sanction is mechanically granted without any application of mind and

only by way of observing mere formalities and that too, after gross, inordinate and

unexplained delay of about four years, complaints based on such sanction are difficult

to sustain. (Para 33)

...There was no allegation in the complaints which would bring the case within the

scope of S. 17 (4) of the Act. There was also no allegation in the complaints that the

offence was committed with the consent / connivance / negligence of the petitioners.

In absence of such allegations, the complaints filed against them could not be

sustained and are, therefore, liable to be quashed.... (Para 34)

...complaints qua the manufacturer and its Directors are quashed by this Court and

that decision has been accepted by the prosecution.

...the complaints qua the present petitioners who are distributors of packed and sealed

tins of groundnut oil, cannot be quashed.... (Para 35)

...Nadiad are quashed qua the petitioners only with liberty to the Trial Court to

exercise its powers under S. 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code.... (Para 37)

164. 2005 (3) G.L.H. 538 S. R. BRAHMBHATT, J State of Gujarat ...Petitioner

Versus Vadilal Popatlal Mehta ...Respondent Criminal Appeal No. 490 of 1996

Dt./- 12.09.2005

*Appeal against the judgment and order passed by Learned Judicial Magistrate First

Class in summary case No. 808 of 1988 dtd. 27.03.1996

Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - Ss. 7 and 16 - Food Inspector visiting

the shop of accused and collecting samples of food article split pulse (Moong Dal) -

about:blank#33

about:blank#34

about:blank#35

about:blank#37



Two reports on record - Report of public analyst indicates that article was not in

conformity with the Rules - Report of the Central Food Laboratory does not indicate

that the sample food was unfit for human consumption - Held that once report of

Central Food Laboratory is received, the report of public Analyst becomes

insignificant - When the report does not say in unequivocal terms that the article is

unfit for human consumption, as per the decision reported in AIR 1976 SC 394, no

interference called for.

...It could be seen from the record of the Central Food Laboratory at Ex.53, the

Director of Central Food Laboratory has not opined in unequivocal terms that the

sample food article was injurious to health or that it was unfit for human

consumption. (Para 6)

...It could be seen from the definition of the Adulterated Food Article and the then

existing standard provided for the sample food article, it can well be said that the ratio

laid down by the Apex Court in case of Municipal Corporation v. Kacheroo Mal

(supra) would also be applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case

also. In the instant case, the report of the Public Analyst dated 28th November, 1987

at Ex.44 mentions against Column 6 that Insect infestation absent and against Column

8 Webs : 5 pieces of webs. The report from the Director of Central Food Laboratory

dated 17th May, 1988 at Ex.53 is conspicuously silent about the fact that whether the

sample food article was unfit for human consumption. The Central Food Laboratory,

as it appears from the record, seems to have examined the sample food article on

10.5.1988. It is established position of law that once the report of Central Food

Laboratory is obtained, then the report of Public Analyst would pale into

insignificance. In view of this, the only piece of evidence in respect of adulteration,

could be the report of the Central Food Laboratory at Ex.53. When this report itself

does not unequivocally state that the subject sample food article was 'unfit for human

consumption', it would not be proper to rely upon such a piece of evidence for

upsetting the order of acquittal, in the present appeal. (Para 7)

about:blank#6

about:blank#7



165. 2005 (3) G.L.H. 389 C. K. BUCH, J. Ganpatbhai T. Prajapati

...Petitioner Versus Food Inspector & 2 ...Respondents Criminal

Revision Application No. 132 of 1994* Dt./- 16.06.2005 *Criminal Revision

Application under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Code of Criminal

Procedure challenging the legality and validity of the Judgment and order dtd.

21/10/1992 by Metropolitan Magistrate and confirmed by the Additional

Sessions Judge vide Judgment and order dtd: 11/02/1994

Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - S. 20(1) - Sanction - Sanction to

prosecute granted by merely stating "Scrutinised all the papers and sanctioned

prosecution" - Not enough -Bare words that all the papers were placed before the

authority would not be sufficient for holding that the authority had applied mind

before granting sanction - Mechanical grant of sanction cannot be said to be a

sanction with active application of mind - Prosecution cannot sustain.

The application of mind to reflect either in the sanction/consent to prosecute granted

by the authority or it must emerge from the evidence led by the prosecution. Two

witnesses normally are competent to lead such evidence, i.e. Complainant, the person

who has applied for such sanction and second, the authority who has accorded such

sanction. When the sanctioning authority states that it has scrutinised all the papers

then what were those papers, is required to be brought on record. The Court found it

difficult to presume that 'all the papers' means papers attached with the complaint

including the report of the Public Analyst and other procedural papers, i.e. intimation

sent to the person from whom the sample is drawn, etc. So it is obligatory in such a

situation to prove as to which papers were placed before the Sectioning Authority

with the draft complaint. It is not necessary even to place a draft complaint. But the

intention to prosecute should be placed before the Sanctioning Authority, and if

possible, mentioning the relevant sections under ; which the complainant intends to

prosecute the proposed accused and the reasons for which he seeks to prosecute the

accused. These reasons may be in the format of different papers including report of

Public Analyst but all these papers were produced must have been stated by leading

oral evidence and bare words that all the papers before the authority would not be



held to be sufficient for holding that the authority had applied mind before granting

sanction. The sanction to prosecute must have been granted by "active application of

mind." Mechanical grant of sanction cannot be said to be sanction with "active

application of mind." (Para 7)

166. 2001 (0) GLHEL-HC 212782 Suresh H.Rajput Versus Jayantilal

Bhikhabhai Shah Criminal Appeal No. 69 of 1991 ; *J.Date :- MARCH 22,

2001


PREVENTION OF FOOD ADULTERATION ACT, 1954 Section - 13(ii)


1954 - S. 13(ii) - appellant-complainant has challenged judgment and acquittal order

of respondents - consideration of report of public Analyst and report of Central Food

Laboratory - two contradictory reports - acquittal based of report of Central Food

Laboratory - justification and validity of - held, report of Central Food Laboratory

would necessarily supercede report of public analyst - S. 13(ii) makes it clear that

report of Central Food Laboratory would supercede the report of public Analyst -

judgment and acquittal order confirmed - appeal dismissed.

167. 2001 (2) G. L. H. 698 K. M. MEHTA, J. Abbasali Taherali Vora

...Applicant Versus Trilokkumar Babubhai Bhaskar, Food Inspector

...Opponent Criminal Revision Application No. 350 of 2000* D/- 20-2-2001

*Criminal Revision challenging Judgment and Order dt. 25-5-2000 passed by

JMFC, Kalol in Criminal case No. 204/89 below Article 101


1954 - Ss. 16 (1) (a)(1)(2) - Allegation that applicant was mixing black pepper

about:blank#7

about://303/57316.ADF

about://303/57767.adf

about://157/37307.ADF

about://157/37326.adf



(Kalamari) - During trial complainant-Food Inspector and Panch witness were

examined - Documents produced and case was posted for arguments after F.S. of

accused is recorded - The Magistrate on the day fixed then passed order suo motu to

examine Public analyst - Held that the Magistrate has given cogent and convincing

reasons for examining public analyst and that Magistrate has perfectly acted as per

the provisions of S. 311 - Revision rejected.

. . . the learned Magistrate has given a very cogent and convincing reason for

examining the public analyst at this stage. He has stated that in this case the public

analyst has already given report at Exh. 73 and the Court will have to consider sample

taken whether it is adultered or not, whether it is injurious to health of the human

being and for that case examination of public analyst is necessary and for that matter

he has directed that public analyst be examined under S. 311 of the Code. In my view

the learned Magistrate has perfectly acted as per the provisions of S. 311 of the Code

which provides for recall or re-examine any person already examined and the Court

shall summon and examine or re-examine any such person if his evidence appears to

it to be essential to the just decision of the case. The scope of this section is very vide.

It enables any Court at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under the

Code to do one of three things: (1) to summon any person as a witness; (2) to

examine any person who is in attendance though not summoned or (3) to recall and

re-examine any person already examined. So far the section to that extent is

permissive. The section confers a power to recall a witness if it is satisfied that he is

prepared to give evidence which is materially different from what he had given at the

trial. (Para 6.9) [@page698]

168. 2001 (2) G. L. H. 587 D. A. MEHTA, J. State of Gujarat ...Appellant

Versus Rajesh D. Thakkar & Ors. ...Respondents Criminal Appeal No. 29 of

1992* Dt/- 17-11-2000 *Appeal filed by State against Judgment and order of

acquittal passed by C.J.M., Bhuj in Summary Case No. 821/88, Dt. 3-9-91

Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - Ss. 7, 11(1)(c)(i), 16 - Trial Court

acquitted accused on one of the grounds that at the time of forwarding sample bottle

about:blank#6.9



to public Analyst, Local Health Authority was not given intimation as required u/S.

11(1)(c)(i) of the Act - Compliance of the said provision whether mandatory or

directory - Two lines of authorities of different Courts taking contrary view found -

View taken by Bombay H.C. is that the provision is mandatory whereas Kerala H.C.

held it to be directory - Held, use of word "shall" in sub-section (1) denotes the

mandatory nature of the provision - View taken by Bombay High Court is found more

commendable - Further held that there being debate as to the true nature and scope of

the concerned provision, the accused must get benefit when two interpretations are

possible - State appeal against acquittal dismissed.

169. 2000 (0) GLHEL-HC 206479 Kiritkumar Budhalal Patel Versus State Of

Gujarat CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION No. 108 of 1998 ; *J.Date :-

OCTOBER 5, 2000

CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 Section - 245(2)


PREVENTION OF FOOD ADULTERATION RULES, 1955 Rule - 32(e)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - S. 245(2) - Prevention of Food Adulteration Act,

1954 - Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 - R. 32(e) - revision - order of

Ld. Magistrate is under challenge, whereby the Trial Court has rejected on application

for dropping the criminal proceedings - revisionists are original accused - prosecution

for misbranding tobacco - Amendment of R. 32(2) - if the charge cannot said to be

groundless, the Ld. Magistrate could not have discharged the revisionist under S.

245(2) of Cr.P.C. - revision dismissed.

(170) 1987 CRLJ P.1338 (P&H) Jagdish Singh v/s State of Harayana

- Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, S.16(1)(a)(i) – CrPC, S.401 – Accused

convicted u/s.16(1)(a)(i) by trial Court – On appeal case remanded for retrial –

Accused again convicted – On appeal case again remanded to trial Court – In view of

about://303/57316.ADF

about://303/57608.adf

about://157/37307.ADF

about://157/37346.ADF

about://157/37411.adf



harassment caused to accused by trial pending for more than 7 years – HC in revision

acquitted accused.

(171) 1998 CRLJ P.3536 (Delhi)

Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, S.20 – Misbranded article –Prosecution for

offence – Sanction to prosecute – Sanction granted on cyclostyled proforma and in

body all names and facts were typed out – Sanction granted in mechanical manner

and without any serious application of mind – Sanction order not valid – Trial

vitiated.

(172) 1998 CRLJ P.3566 (Raj)

Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, S.16 – Sentence – Accused undergone the

mental strain for 17 years – Also suffered economically –Remained in custody for 27

days – Sentence reduced to the period already undergone.

(173) 1999 CRLJ P.223 (Kerala)

(A) Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, S.16 – Chewing Gum – No standard fixed

for moisture content in chewing gum – Prosecution against accused for adulteration in

chewing gum cannot be delayed indefinitely on mere expectation that Union Govt.

will take a favorable decision.

(174) 2003 CRLJ P.3397 (Guj)

- Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, Ss.7, 13 – Adulteration in milk –Sample

was taken more than 15 years back – Variation in report of Public Analyst and

Central Food Laboratory – Accused was a petty trader and being a lady maintaining

her livelihood – When sample was taken she was not present in shop and it was taken



from her minor son who was sitting in shop at relevant time – Acquittal of accused

proper.

(175) 2003(4) GLR P.3013

(A) Prevention of Food Adulteration Act,1954, Ss.13(2) & 16 – No evidence to

indicate that milk was stirred at the time of collecting sample – It cannot be said that

sample collected represented full quantity of milk.

(176) 2005 CRLJ P.1569 (P&H)

(B) Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, S.16 – Sentence – Sample of Tata

Salt drawn from shop of petitioner found not containing minimum prescribed limit of

Iodine – Petitioner is first offender and has already faced protracted trial of more than

16 years – Petitioner, a petty shop keeper in rural area and was selling the branded

non-iodised salt, which was prohibited vide notification just one year prior to taking

of sample – His case is covered by second proviso to S.16 – Petitioner released on

probation.

(177) 1991 CRLJ P. 227

Adda Kasiviswara Rao / State of A.P. - Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, S.20 –

Sanction for prosecution – Non application mind – Absence of reasons – Sanction

vitiated – Accused acquitted.

(178) 1991 CRLJ P.2497

Rajendra s/o Ram Ratn / state of Madhya Pradesh (B) Prevention of Food

Adulteration Act, S.16 – Adulteration – Conviction of three brothers on basis that one

of them who sold tea to Inspector, telling that shop was being run by him in

partnership with his two brothers – Sale made by one only – Prosecution not proving

existence of partnership – Conviction of others than one effecting sale – Not justified.



(179) 1992 CRLJ P.2022 (BOM)

- Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, S.2(v) – “Food" – “Coconut oil" – Evidence

of Food Inspector that coconut oil used in "Vidarbha region' as hair oil – No evidence

that such oil was sold as "food" – Conviction of accused illegal.

(180) 1993 CRLJ P. 1017 (A.P.) B.Mukalinangam / Vuppalas Venkata

Satyanarayan

- Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, Ss.8, 9 – Prevention of food adulteration

Rules, R.8 Proviso, Expn. – G.O.Ms. No.313 dt.23-2-1956 – Food inspector who can

act as person working as sanitary inspector since 1966 – Sanitary inspector deemed to

be food inspectors in terms of notification – He is competent to act as Food Inspector

and file complaint for offence under Act.

(181) 1996 CRLJ P.2651 (Orissa) Santosh Sigh State of Orrisa

(B) Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, S.20 – Consent / Sanction for prosecution

– Need not contain reasons in support thereof.

(182) 1998 CRLJ P.2197 (Raj)

- Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, S.16 – Quashing of proceedings – Delayed

trial – Proceedings spread over nearly 56 adjournments – Application by prosecution

after close of evidence for completion of trial summarily – Pending same, and without

disposal thereof, case abruptly transferred to Court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate

– Same pending for hearing – Thus more than 13 year's period had elapsed since

taking sample – Such callous, indifferent manner having resulted in apparent failure

of justice – Proceedings quashed.



(183) 1983 CRLJ P.172 Municipal Corporation of Delhi V/s Purshottam Das

Jhunjhunwala & others.

- Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, Ss. 20, 16, 17 – Prosecution of Directors of a

Sugar Mill for manufacturing adulterated milk toffee – Complaint averments giving

complete details of role played by Directors and the extent of their liability –

Complaint against accused could not be said to be vague and not implicating

directors – HC not justified in exercising its discretion u/s.482, CrPC to quash the

proceedings against accused – Judgment of Delhi High Court dated 5-3-1980,

Reversed. - CrPC, 1973, S. 482.

(184) 1986 CRLJ P.2037 (SC) = AIR 1986 P.2160 (SC) A.K. Roy and another

V/s State of Punjab and others.

- Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, Ss. 20(1), 24(2)(e) – Prevention of Food

Adulteration (Punjab) Rules (1958), R. 3 – R. 3 must be read subject to provisions

contained in S. 20(1) – S. 20 does not envisage further delegation of powers by

person authorized by Central or State Government – Prosecution launched by Food

Inspector under purported delegation of authority in that behalf by Food (Health)

Authority who was authorized by Central or State Government – No written consent

by Central or State Government for prosecution – Prosecution was illegal.

(Interpretation of Statutes – Negative language.)

(185) 2001(2) GLR P.1731 State of Gujarat V/s. Rajesh D. Thakkar & Ors.

- Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, S.11(1)(c)(i) – Requirement to intimate

to the Local Health Authority fact that sample has been sent to Public Analyst –

Provision is mandatory – Oral evidence of Food Inspector that such intimation was

given not supported by documents – Acquittal order on this count confirmed.

(186) 2000(1) GLR P.572 State of Gujarat V/s. Haiderali Rasulbhai Momin.



(A) Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, Ss.7 & 13 – Delay of eight months

in obtaining consent – Prosecution launched five months after obtaining consent – On

fact found no prejudice caused to accused – Act being for safeguarding public health,

accused not entitled to acquittal on the ground of delay.

(187) AIR 1983 P.67 (SC) (Delhi) Municipal Corporation of Delhi V/s. Ram

Kishan Rohtagi.

- CrPC, Ss.319 & 482 – Power u/s.482 when can be exercised for quashing, criminal

proceedings – Offence by Company under Prevention of Food Adulteration Act –

Complaint against Company, its Directors and Manager – No clear allegations against

Manager and Directors that they were responsible for conduct of business of disputed

sample – Held, proceedings could be quashed against Directors but not against

Manager, (1980) 1 FAC 419 (Delhi), Reversed, (Prevention of Food Adulteration

Act,1954, S. 17).

(188) 1987 CRLJ P.2025 (Orissa) Rama Chandra Sahu V/s. The State.

- Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, S.10(7) – Statutory purchase of sample –

Persons present but reluctant to be witnesses – Prosecution is relieved of its

obligation of securing presence of independent witnesses.

(189) (2004) 4 SCC P.567 State of H.P. V/s. Narendra Kumar & Anr.

(A) Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, R-18 (as amended by GSR

No.293(E) dated 23.3.1985 with effect from 24.9.1985) – Requirements and object of

– Copy of memorandum and specimen impression of seal – Held, must be sent in a

sealed packet “separately” and independently of the articles required to be sent under

Rule 17 – Word “separately” does not indicate that the said copy of the memorandum

and the specimen impression of seal should be sent separately in different packets but

that they are sent separately from the articles sent for analysis – Rebuttable



presumption can be drawn u/s.114 of Evidence Act that requirements of R-18 have

been complied with – Presumption not dislodged in this case – On facts held, accused

was wrongly acquitted of offence u/s.16(1)(a)(i) of the Act – Sentence of six months

imprisonment and fine of Rs.1000 imposed – But if accused moves for commutation

of sentence the same may be considered by appropriate Govt. – Prevention of Food

Adulteration Act, 1954, S.16(1)(a)(i) – Evidence Act, 1872, S.114.

(B) Criminal Trial – Sentence – Mitigation factors or circumstances – Offences

taking place twenty years ago – In view of the erroneous acquittal by the Courts

below, accused sentenced to six months’ RI and Rs.1000/- as fine – Accused allowed

to approach appropriate authority for commutation of sentence. - Held, R.18 requires

the Food Inspector : (i) to send (a) a copy of the memorandum ;and (b) specimen

impression of the seal used to seal in a sealed packet to the public analyst; (ii) to send

this sealed packet separately by any suitable means; and (iii) to send the same

immediately but not later than the succeeding working day. The expression

“separately” has to be understood on a conjoint reading of Rules 7, 17 and 18, so

read, it is clear that the word “separately” used in R.18 has been intended to convey

the sense that the copy of the memorandum and the specimen impression of the seal

has to be sent independently of the articles that are required to be sent under Rule 17.

It is mandatory that the materials referred in Rules 17 & 18 are to be separately sent

to the public analyst. It is not possible to accept the view that the memorandum and

the specimen of seal were to be sent separately in different packets. On a plain

reading of R-18, what is required is that a copy of the memorandum and specimen

impression of the seal used to seal the packet shall be sent in a sealed packet

separately to the public analyst. The word “separately” refers to separate dispatch of

articles indicated in R-17 and R-18. The expression “in a sealed packet” refers to both

the copy of memorandum and the specimen impression of the seal. They are both

required to be sent in a sealed packet. Plurality of packets is not provided for and

obligated. What is required is that the copy of memorandum and specimen impression

of the seal used to seal the packet are to be sent in a sealed packet separately and not

with the articles required to be sent under R-17. The object of R-18 is to ensure the



accuracy of the seal on the samples sent to public analyst by comparison with the

specimen impression of the seal sent by the Food Inspector separately.

- State of Maharastra V/s. Rajkaran, 1987 Supp. SCC P.183 : 1988 SCC (Cri.) P.47

referred to :

In this case the report of the public analyst in terms of R-7(3) shows that be found

the same intact and unbroken. The seal fixed on the container and on the ouster cover

of the sample tallied with the specimen impression of the seal sent separately by the

Food

Inspector. A presumption can be drawn that requirements of R.18 have been

complied with. The presumption u/s.114 of the Indian Evidence Act, in relation to

regular performance of official acts applies to the report of a public analyst. However,

this presumption is rebuttable. No efforts was made by the accused to dislodge this

presumption. There was even no suggestion to the Food Inspector (PW1) who

exhibited the report that there is any untruth in the recital by the public analyst.

Additionally, during trial PW1 produced postal receipts with regards to the memos

and documents regarding dispatch of the same sending of memos. The genuineness of

the receipts was not questioned by Accused 1. The trial Court and the HC were not

justified in directing acquittal of accused 1. So far as the acquittal of Accused 2 is

concerned, the conclusions of the trail Court and the HC have been arrived at by

properly appreciating the evidence and no interference is called for. The occurrence

took place nearly two decades back, and the Courts below acquittal the accused,

though erroneously. Therefore, keeping in view the nature of violation and the

particular facts and circumstances of the case while sentencing Accused 1 to

undergo six months’ RI and fine of Rs.1000/- if Accused 1 moves the appropriate

government to commute the sentence of imprisonment, the same may be considered

in the light of the SC’s decision in N. Sukumaran case subject to such conditions or

terms as the Government may choose to impose.

(190) AIR 1998 P.128 (SC) (ALL) M/s. Pepsi Foods Ltd. & anr. V/s. Special

Judicial Magistrate & ors.



- CrPC, 1973, S.482 – Quashing of complaint – Powers of HC – Complaint filed

u/s.7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act – Allegation that complainant was

sold bottle of beverage under brand 'Lehar Pepsi' which was adulterated – No material

showing appellant-accused were either manufacturer or holding licence for

manufacture of offending beverage – Complaint and preliminary evidence making out

no case against accused – Complaint liable to be quashed.

(191) 2001 SCC (Cri.) P.120 Ramlal V/s. State of Rajasthan.

(A) Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, R-5, and Appendix B Item

A.11.01.01 – Milk – Camel milk – Falls within the definition of milk – It cannot be

said to be unfit for human consumption.

(B) Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, R-5, and Appendix B Item

A.11.01.01 (i) – When milk is offered for sale without any indication of the class –

Camel Milk – Prosecution has to show how the standards prescribed for buffalo milk

should apply to camel’s milk.

(C) Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, S.2(v) & 10 – Article of food – Camel

Milk – Question whether it can be consumed by human beings does not arise where

Food Inspector had taken its sample on the assumption that it was an article of food.

(D) Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, S.2(v) – An article which is food does not

lose its character as food by the fact that it was also used or sold for other purposes.

(E) Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, S.16(1)(a)(i) – Sentence – HC while

reversing acquittal recording conviction u/s.16(1)(a)(i) should have given an

opportunity of being heard to the accused on the question of sentence – At the stage

of appeal before SC, it would be too late to send the case back to HC for that purpose

alone – In the circumstances sentence of 6 months’ RI and fine of Rs.1000 reduced to

3 months’ RI and fine of Rs.300.

(192) 2002 SCC (Cri.) P.883 Ranajoy Bose V/s. A.B. Roy.



(A) Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, S.20(1) & S.2(vii) & (viii-a) – Consent for

prosecution – Competent authority – Person authorized in this behalf by Govt. of

West Bengal – Held, each District Health Officer of Calcutta Corporation competent

to accord consent for launching prosecution – Municipalities – Calcutta Municipal

Act, 1951, S.76 – Notification under.

(B) Doctrines – De facto doctrine – Applicability.

(C) Interpretation of Statutes – Interpretation of subordinate legislation –Notification

– For ascertaining the intention of the authority the notification should be read as a

whole – No part should be rendered redundant.

(193) 2004 SCC (Cri.) P.2024 State of Haryana V/s. Daya Nand.

- Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, S.16(1)(a)(i) – Cow milk – Non-conformity

with prescribed minimum standard – Sample taken found to be deficient in milk solid

as well as solid fat – Concurrent findings of the trial Court and the Sessions Court

based on evidence on record, indicating that the sample milk was properly stirred as

required by law and the sample was made representative and homogeneous – HC

however, granting benefit of doubt on erroneous assumption that though there was

deficiency of solid fat contents in the seized sample, the sample may not have been

properly stirred – Held, HC erred in acquitting the accused on such erroneous

assumption which had no foundation at all – HC cannot substitute the factual

foundation available on record, by an assumption, to give benefit of doubt –

Conviction and sentence by the trial Court, restored – Rule 5 r/w Appendix B, Items

11.01.01 and 11.01.11 – CrPC, 1973, Ss.397 & 401 – Revision

(194) 2003 SCC (Cri.) P.1012 State (Delhi Administration) V/s. Dharampal.

- CrPC, 1973, S.313 – Failure to draw accused’s attention to inculpatory material to

enable him to explain it in examination of accused u/s.313 – Held, by itself does not

vitiate the proceedings – Prejudice, if any, caused to the accused must be established



by him – It is also open to the appellate Court to call upon the counsel for the accused

to show the explanation which accused had to offer in respect of the circumstances

established against him but not put to him – On facts, held, in a food adulteration

case, no prejudice had occasioned to the accused on omission to put to him the

contents of the certificate of Director, Central Food Laboratory while recording his

statement u/s.313 – Where the prosecution is dependant on any report or certificate it

is enough to draw the S.313 – Where the prosecution is dependent on any report or

certificate it is enough to draw the attention of the accused to it – Not necessary that

his attention be specifically drawn to the contents of such report or certificate – S.13,

7 & 16 of PFA Act – Ss.25, 27 & 30 of Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940.

(195) 2004 SCC (Cri.) P.1188 Rajinder Kumar V/s. State of H.P.

(B) Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, S.10(7) – Obligation of Food Inspector

under, is to “call” one or more persons to be present when he takes action – When

Food Inspector had called the persons present in the canteen, from where the sample

of the food article was taken, to affix their signatures after witnessing the sample.

(C) Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, Ss.10(2) & 16(1) – New plea – Plea that

sample of food article taken from appellant’s canteen was not intended for sale, not

taken before Courts below – Held on facts, cannot be raised before SC – Constitution

of India, Art.136 – New plea.

(196) 2000 SCC (Cri.) P.1116 Food Inspector, Ernakulam V/s. Sreenivasa

Shenoy.

(A) Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, Ss.13 & 20(1) – Prosecution instituted on

the basis of report of Public Analyst after obtaining consent of authorities concerned

– Subsequently certificate issued by Director, Central Food Laboratory showing that

though both the authorities held that the sample of the food article (toor dal) was

adulterated but there was difference in the reasons or data by which they reached the

conclusion in as much as while Public Analyst opined that it contained kesari dal, the



Director, CFL opined that it contained synthetic coal tar dye (tartrazine) – Held, fresh

consent to institute prosecution and recommence the proceedings on the basis of the

new facts revealed in the certificate of Director, CFL not required – Sanction is

required only at the stage of institution of prosecution on the basis of report of Public

Analyst and not at post-institutional stage when the certificate of Director, CFL can

be brought in evidence – Once prosecution is instituted validly, matter is controlled

by judicial functionary and switching back to the pre-institutional stage for fresh

consent of the authorities concerned is unnecessary – In the circumstances, obtaining

of fresh consent cannot also be insisted upon in view of the second limb of S.216(5),

CrPC.

(B) Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, S.13(2), (2-B), (2-D), (3), (5) – Certificate

of Director, CFL supersedes report of Public Analyst – While report of Public

Analyst can be obtained during the stage prior to institution of prosecution, certificate

of Director, CFL can be obtained and brought in evidence only after institution of

prosecution – After commencement of the evidence stage, a new document viz. the

certificate of the Director superseded the existing material viz. report of Public

Analyst already admitted in evidence.

(197) 2002 SCC (Cri.) P.1670 Delhi Administration V/s. Manohar lal.

(B) Constitution of India, Art.141 – Precedent – “Law declared” – Although law

declared by SC is binding, HC or any other Court instead of mechanically applying a

decision of the SC, should first find out the ratio of the decision on a careful reading

of

the judgement and then consider its applicability to the case in hand – Where the SC

in a case only gave certain directions to dispose of the matter in the particular facts

and circumstances of that case and did not decide and declare any law, the same

cannot be adopted as a routine matter to dispose of all cases.

(C) Adminstrative Law – Administrative action – Generally – Power vested by

statute in a public authority should be viewed as in trust coupled with duty to be

exercised in larger public and social interest.



(198) (1992)3 SCC P.100 State of U.P. V/s. Hanif.

(A) Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, S.8 – Public Analyst – Jurisdiction –

Appointment of more than one Public Analyst – By a notification issued in

supersession of the earlier notifications, a Public Analyst appointed for the whole

State of U.P. treating it as one single local area but by a subsequent notification

issued in continuation of the previous one a Public Analyst appointed only for

Varanasi and Allahabad regions – Held, the Public Analyst appointed under the

subsequent notification was in addition to the Public Analyst appointed earlier –

Hence, the Public Analyst appointed by the earlier notification will also have

jurisdiction to analyse the samples of food articles taken in Varanasi and Allahabad

regions.

(B) Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, Ss.9, 10, 11 – Food Inspector –

Evidentiary value of – He cannot ordinarily be treated as an interested witness and

his testimony can be acted upon even without any corroboration – Criminal Trial –

Witnesses – Interested witness.

(199) AIR 1981 P.1169 (SC) = 1981 CRLJ P.632 (Delhi) (SC) Municipal

Corporation of Delhi V/s. Girdharilal Sapuru.

(B) Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, S.16 – Prosecution under the Act – SC

ordering retrial – Plea that long time elapsed since prosecution and retrial would

cause hardship to accused – Not entertained in view of threat to health caused by food

adulteration.

(200) AIR 1971 P.1277 (SC) (From 1970(11) GLR P.530) Babulal Hargovindas

V/s. State of Gujarat.

(B) Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, S.10(7) – The provisions of S.10(7) being

salutary should be complied with by the Food Inspector – This however does not

mean that the evidence of the Food Inspector who is not an accomplice, that he had

complied with the requirements of law by calling a panch witness and taking his



signature cannot be accepted without corroboration especially when the panch has

admitted his signature – Prosecution is not open when the accused has not filed an

application u/s.13(2) during the trial and there is no evidence to show that no

preservative was added to the sample.

(D) Prevention of Food AdulterationRules, R-7(2) – There is no inconsistency

between R-7 and S.13(1) of the Act – Nor is the rule ultra vires the rule making

power u/s.23(1)(e) – Rule 7(2) authorizing the Public Analyst to get the sample

analyzed by his subordinate is not therefore, ultra vires the Act.

(E) Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, S.20(1) – A complaint filed by the Food

Inspector of a Municipal Corporation with the written consent of the Medical Officer

of Health who is authorized in that behalf by a resolution of the Corporation and not

by the Municipal Commissioner is in accordance with S.20(1) – AIR 1961 P.56 (SC),

relied.

(201) AIR 1979 P.1917 = 1980 CRLJ P.838 Sharif Ahmed V/s. State of U.P.

- Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, Ss.16, 7 and 13 – Sentence – Prohibited coal-

tar dye – Dye not mentioned in Public Analyst’s report to be injurious to human life –

Plea of, for reduction of imprisonment part of sentence is not maintainable –

Prohibition under Act & Rules is because prohibited article is harmful to human

health.

(202) AIR 1970 P.318 (SC) Dhian Singh V/s. Municipal Board, Saharanpur.

(B) Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, S.13 – Report of Public Analyst – Need

not contain mode or particulars of analysis nor the test applied – But should contain

result of analysis namely, data from which it can be inferred whether the article of

food was or was not adulterated – Relevant data given in report – Accused can be

convicted on basis of such report.

(203) (2006) 11 GHJ P.6 (Guj.) G.Y. Ramekra V/s. Rehman I. Ghanchi.



- Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, S.16 & 17 – Adulteration – Acquittal –

Accused acquitted as the sanctioning authority is shown to have been not validly

given sanction – Appeal against acquittal – Held, it is seen from sanction letter that

the sanctioning authority had, before giving sanction, considered entire record, report

of Public Analyst and had applied mind, the Magistrate erred in concluding that

sanction was not validly given – Appeal partly allowed.

(204) (2005)10 GHJ P.394 (Guj.) State of Gujarat V/s. Kishorkumar

Bhikhabhai.

- Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, Ss.7, 16, 20 – Accused prosecuted for selling

adulterated candy – Acquittal – Appeal against acquittal – Contended that the

sanctioning authority declared sanction invalid and did not consider the main issue

whether the adulterated food was adulterated or not – Held, considering the contents

of sanction order, sanction valid, matter remanded to trial Court to decide the issue

afresh – Appeal allowed.

(205) (2006)11 GHJ P.19 (Guj.) State of Gujarat V/s. Ambalal Lalji.

- Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, S.16, 17 and Rule 4 – Adulteration –

Noncompliance of R-4 – Acquittal – After receipt of report of Public Analyst the

accused applied for examination of sample by CFL – Court did not follow the

procedure prescribed under R-4 – Court had ordered to take action against panchas &

Food Inspector – Held, as the mandatory requirements of R-4 were not complied

with, acquittal order proper, but the order of the trial Court in respect of taking action

against panchas, etc. set aside – Appeal partly allowed.

(206) 2005(1) FAC P.243 (Kerala) Chittur Thathamangalam Municipality V/s.

Shahul Hameed.



- Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, S.13(2) – Compliance defective – No

prejudice to the accused – Sample contained 3.1% of milk fat and 5.2% of milk solids

other than fat – According to the appellant, there was a Health Officer in the

Municipality during the relevant time and hence the Commissioner was not the

Health Officer. Therefore, it is contended that there is violation of S.13(2) of the Act.

However, he has no case that any prejudice is caused to him because instead of the

Health Officer, the Commissioner himself actually acted u/s.13(2) of the Act –

S.13(2)

gives a valuable right to the accused and substantial compliance of the same is

mandatory. Defect, if any in the compliance of that section shall not be of the nature,

which may cause prejudice to the accused – The Act itself is enacted to check the

antisocial evil of adulterant food articles, and hence, punishment for offences under

the Act cannot be interfered with lightly – The conviction of the first

respondent/accused and the sentence imposed on him by the JMFC, Chittur in S.T.

3877 of 1988 is restored.

(207) 2005(1) FAC P.222 (ALL) Ganesh Prasad V/s. State of U.P.

- Zeera – Sample taken – Adulteration 8.5% in excess of 7% - Zeera is a primary

food. Therefore, in view of the facts that sample of Zeera was taken in the month of

December, 1984 and the revisionist was convicted by the Ld. Magistrate in the month

of April, 1987 – Benefit of the proviso to S.16 extended.

(208) 2005(1) FAC P.210 (Kerala) Varghese V/s. State of Kerala.

- A person engaging himself in the business of vending food articles must certainly

ensure, if he were to claim the protection of S.19(2) of PFA Act that the

manufacturer, distributor or dealer from whom he purchased the article-coriander

powder, sold by him to the Food Inspector, did have the requisite license under law.

(209) 2005(1) FAC P.217 (SC) State Govt. of NCT of Delhi V/s. Amar Singh.



- Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, S.16(1A) – No discretion has been given to

Court to reduce the imprisonment from less than the minimum period of 1 year

prescribed under the Statute.

(210) 2005(1) FAC P.166 (P&H)

(A) Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, Ss.13(2), Rule-9A – Sample taken found

adulterated – Report sent to the accused prior to institution of complaint – As per R-

9A, report to be sent after institution of complaint in Court – Accused not prejudiced

–Conviction.

(B) Prevention of Food Adulteration Act – Delay in sending the report or filing

complaint – Irregularity – Does not entitle the accused to acquittal.

(C) Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, R-9A – Rule 9A is directory – Petitioner

has not availed the remedy u/s.13(2) of Act to send the second sample for analysis to

the CFL, therefore, it cannot be said that he has suffered any prejudice on account of

supply of the report of the Public Analyst prior to the institution of the complaint.

(211) 2000 FAJ P.329 (Raj.) Laleng V/s. State of Rajasthan.

- Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, Ss.7, 16, 13(2) & 16(1) – General Clauses

Act, 1897, S.27 – Copy of analyst report sent by registered A.D. not received by

petitioner – Acknowledgement not received – It will be presumed u/s.27 of General

Clauses Act that report delivered in ordinary course of post – Petitioner not proved

contrary to it – Provisions of S.13(2) complied with.

(212) 2005(1) FAC P.48 (Guj.) State of Gujarat V/s. Vishramdas Virumal.

- Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, S.13(1) – Can a report of the Public Analyst

delivered u/s.13(1) declaring on analysis of a sample of food to be “adulterated” or

“misbranded”, be ignored without examining the Public Analyst as a witness either



by Court or the accused raising a doubt about the correctness of the report only on the

ground that the report is signed by the Public Analyst later on and not on the date on

which sample was analysed – Held, cannot be ignored.

(213) 2005(2) GLR P.1221 Ramesh Ganpatrao Bendbar V/s. Jivanlal

Mangaldas Shah.

- Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, S.20 – Acquittal by Magistrate on the ground

that consent for prosecution was defective as order granting consent did not contain

reasons – During pendency of appeals in the HC, SC rendered judgment holding that

detailed reasons are not necessary – Acquittal liable to be set aside – However, since

a period of 20 years had elapsed matter not remanded to trial Court for de novo trial.

(214) 1998 FAJ P.152 (Kerala) Food Inspector V/s. James.

(A) Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, Ss.7 &16 – Peas dhal reported insect

infested and unfit for human consumption – Food Inspector whose cross-examination

was deferred at pre-charge stage could not be examined after charge as he passed

away – His evidence would be admissible though evidentiary value will depend upon

facts and circumstances – Peon of office who had accompanied Food Inspector while

taking the sample supported fact of taking sample – Purchase of sample had not been

disputed by respondents – Rejection of prosecution case on discrepancies could not

be justified – Prosecution established that respondents committed offences u/ss.2(ia),

(a),(f), (m) and 7(i), 16 of Act – Sentence of six months imprisonment and fine of

Rs.1000/- imposed.

(B) Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, S.13(2) – Compliance of mandatory

provision – Statutory notice with copy of analysis report was sent to respondent by

regd. Post but was returned with remarks “unclaimed” – It was sent on correct

address and respondents were residing at the place to which notice were addressed –

It was proper service of notice on respondents.



(215) 2001(1) GLR P.1785 Pirmohammad Ibrahim V/s. Manilal Gopaldas Patel.

(A) Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, S.13(2A), Rr-4 & 18 – Magistrate sent

sample to CFL in one cover and copy of memorandum and specimen impression of

seal in another cover – Postal acknowledgement receipts of both covers produced on

record – Held, said provisions of Rules were complied with.

(B) Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, R-4 – Under the amended Rules the only

requirement is to note the conditions of the seal – Comparing of seals on the container

and outer cover with the specimen seal is not required.

(C) Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, Ss.7 & 16(1)(a)(i) – Accused tried for

offence of selling adulterated chilly powder – Contention that due to height of the

shop and situation of shop being in busy locality, there was likelihood of dust

particles in the sample – Held, it was for the accused to keep the food item in proper

manner and he cannot take advantage of his own wrong.

(D) Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, S.20 – Sanction for prosecution –

Sanctioning authority had report of Public Analyst before sanction was accorded –

Public Analyst would not have analysed the sample in absence of memorandum from

Food Inspector – Under the circumstances, it was not necessary for sanctioning

authority to see the memorandum – Contention that sanction was accorded

mechanically negatived.

(216) 2000(1) FAC P.143 (Guj.) State of Gujarat V/s. Gangram Khanmal

Sindhi.

(A) Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, S.20 – Merely because word “prima facie”

is not written, it does not mean that the competent authority has not applied its mind.

(B) Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, Ss.7 & 16 – Owner of a shop but was

working with a small trader and a period of more than 11 years having lapsed, it

would be for the State Government to decide the question of remission – Sentence of

imprisonment is suspended for a period of four months, to enable the accused to make

an application to State Govt. for remission of sentence.



(217) 1992(1) FAC P.311 (Guj.) Gunvantray Chhotalal Bhatt V/s. Mohamad

Kunjumal.

(B) Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, Ss.2, 7, 16 – Sale – Requirements of a sale

“for analysis” can never be a sale for human consumption but it is nonetheless a sale

within the meaning of the definition. It is an unqualified sale for the purpose of the

Act. To insist that an article sold for analysis should have been offered for sale for

human consumption would frustrate the very object of the Act. A person selling an

adulterated sample to a Food Inspector could invariably inform him that it was not for

human consumption and thereby insure himself against prosecution for selling

adulterated food. If sale for analysis is an unqualified sale for the purposes of the Act

there is no reason why other sales of the same article should not be sales for the

purposes of the Act. In favour of accused.

(218) 2001 SCC (Cri.) P.1567 M. Sainuddin V/s. Food Inspector.

S.401 & 397 of CrPC – Revision – Suo Motu exercise of power by HC – Held not

justified when, on facts, two views are reasonably possible and the lower Court has

taken a view in favour of the accused – Accused prosecuted for selling adulterated

“Ghee” taking defence that he was selling vanaspati ghee only – Public Analyst’s

report establishing the ghee to be vanaspati ghee – In view of the fact that vanaspati

oil is also referred to as “dalda” and “ghee” in different localities, Session Judge

acquitting the accused – Setting aside HC’s order, held, it was not a situation where

the case for the prosecution was so strong to say that the decision of Sessions Judge

was thoroughly perverse and against the weight of evidence – Ss.16, 17 PFA Act –

Acquittal – Suo Motu revision by HC, held, on facts not called for – Rules 44, 44-B

and A.11.02.21.

(219) 1999 SCC (Cri.) 218 Calcutta Municipal Corporation V/s. Pawankumar

Saraf.



(B) Evidence Act, S.4 – “Conclusive Proof” – Statute making certain fact as final

and conclusive – Held, no party can give evidence to disprove such fact.

(220) 2004(2) Crimes P.275 (SC) Dineshkumar V/s. State of M.P.

- Notification for application of Rule-44A was issued w.e.f. 06.04.2000 and sample

had been drawn in 1988 – R-44A could not have been applied to find accused guilty –

Conviction cannot be sustained.

(221) 2005(3) GLH P.389 Ganpat T. Prajapati V/s. Food Inspector.

(A) Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, S.20(1) – Sanction to prosecute granted by

merely stating “scrutinized all the papers and sanctioned prosecution” – Not enough –

Bare words that all the papers were placed before the authority would not be

sufficient

for holding that the authority had applied mind before granting sanction –

Mechanical grant of sanction cannot be a said to be a sanction with active application

of mind – Prosecution cannot sustain.

(222) 1995(2) GLR P.1528 Laxmichand Bhailal Thakker V/s. State of Gujarat.

- Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, Ss.6, 7, 16 and Rule-4 – The Rule is

mandatory and the seal on the sample must be compared with the specimen seal by

the Director of Health Laboratory – Failure to do so vitiates the trial – Even an article

like solid ghee must be stirred well before taking a sample and for the purpose it must

be heated.

(223) 1995(1) GLR P.1099 State of Gujarat V/s. Sohanlal Trikamchand Shah.



- Rule 14 is mandatory in nature – It is duty of the prosecution to prove beyond

reasonable doubt that the ingredients or provisions that are required to be proved as

per law are proved beyond reasonable doubt.

(224) 2005(3) GLH P.179 State of Gujarat V/s. Punabhai Ramabhai Machhi.

- Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, Ss.7(i)(v) & 16(1)(a)(i), Rule 14 –

Adulterated milk – Food Inspector purchased the milk from the accused for sending it

for analysis – Public Analyst found the sample of milk adulterated – Local Health

Authority issued sanction for institution of prosecution against accused – Magistrate

acquitted the accused on the ground that the prosecution has failed to establish,

beyond doubt, the compliance with mandatory provisions of R-14 – Food Inspector

admitted in his deposition that the helpers were responsible for cleaning the bottles

and he has not cleaned the bottles – The prosecution has not examined the helper,

responsible for cleaning the bottles – Held, prosecution has failed in proving its case

beyond reasonable doubt that there was complete compliance with R-14 – Acquittal

upheld.

(225) 2005(2) GLR P.1518 Vallabhbhai Popatbhai V/s. State of Gujarat.

(A) Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, S.13(2) – Sample analysed by Laboratory

at Vadodara – Forwarding letter to sanctioning authority stated that report of Public

Health Laboratory, Bhuj was sent – Sanctioning authority intimated the accused that

Bhuj Laboratory had found the sample adulterated – Discrepancy also found in date

of the Laboratory report – Held, there was non-application of mind by the sanctioning

authority – Accused entitled to acquittal on this ground.

(226) 2005(3) GLH P.297 Gangadhar Y. Ramekar V/s. Rohit Jivanlal Patel.



- Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, Ss.2(1)(A), 7, 16 – Evidence on record shows

that samples of food article “methino bhardo”, “jawara methi” were taken – Held,

“methino bhardo”, “jawara methi” not covered under definition of “Fenugreek”, i.e

(methi) or “Fenugreek powder” i.e (methi powder) – Prosecution has failed to prove

that food article in question is the food article referred to in item A.02.12.01 –

Acquittal upheld.

(227) 2005(3) GLR P.2056 G.Y. Ramekra V/s. Rehmanbhai I. Ghanchi.

(A) Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, R-8 – Notification appointing the

complainant as Food Inspector was on record – Held, Magistrate erred in holding that

as there was lacuna in the training period, it cannot be said that appointment of Food

Inspector was valid.

(B) Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, S.13(2) – Notice u/s.13(2) of the Act was

sent to the address of the shop from where the sample was collected –

Acknowledgement slips were signed by one of the two accused persons who were

brothers – Held, Magistrate erred in holding that notice was not served on the owner.

(C) Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, S.20(i) – Sanction letter showed that the

authority had persued the file and report of Public Analyst – It was apparent that

sanction was given after due application of mind – Held, the Magistrate erred in

holding that sanction was invalid as provision of law was not mentioned and sanction

was given on the same day on which the file was received.

(228) 1995(2) GLR P.1542 State of Gujarat V/s. Ratilal Maganlal Shah.

- Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, Ss.7, 14, 17, 19 – Where a retailer produces a

warranty and satisfies other requirements, he cannot be convicted – A firm is a

company as understood in S.17 – Unless it is proved that persons who are prosecuted

are partners of a firm or are persons responsible for carrying on the affairs of a

company they cannot be convicted for an offence committed by a firm or company.



(229) AIR 1966 P.128 (SC) (5 Judges Decision) Mangaldas Raghavji Ruparel

V/s. State of Maharastra.

- Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, Ss.2 (xiii), 10, 13, 19 – Report of public

Analyst is admissible in evidence u/s.13(5) – Prosecution cannot be blamed for not

calling Public Analyst as witness – Report once placed upon record is admissible

against all accused persons – Vender in S.19(1) means the person who has sold the

article of food and not merely the person from whom sample was actually taken –

Burden to prove Mens Rea does not lie upon prosecution – S.182, CrPC – Mere fact

that proceedings were taken in a wrong place would not vitiate the trial unless it

appears that this has occasioned a failure of justice – S.11(1) requires notice to be

given only to the person from whom the sample is taken and to no one else.

===========================================================

Date post:	14-Apr-2017
Category:	Documents
Upload:	arjun-randhir
View:	775 times
Download:	0 times