STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. KESHAVLAL KALIDAS PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . The State has preferred this appeal from an order of acquittal passed in appeal by the learned Additional City Sessions Judge at Ahmedabad in criminal appeal No. 31 of 1977 whereby he set aside the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate against respondent No. 1 that is the original accused who was tried for the offence under section 16(1)(a) (iii) read with section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (the Act).

(2.) Mr. Chhaya has raised several points concerning the question as to whether it would be incumbent on the Director Central Food Laboratory or the Public analyst to positively mention the counter dye used so as to enable the court to hold as to whether it was non-permitted counter dye or not. Mr. Shethna also made his submissions to controvert the position taken up by Mr. Chhaya in this connection. But in our opinion in view of a further point raised by Mr. Shethna with regard to the breach of the mandatory provisions contained in Rule 16(c) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules (the Rules) it would not be necessary to go into the questions raised by Mr. Chhaya as this appeal can be decided on the said point concerning the breach of Rule 16(c) of the Rules.

(3.) A perusal of the provisions contained in Rule 16(b) and (c) does not leave any doubt that the object of the provisions is to see that the sample received for analysis is doubly secured which is inter alia with a view to prevent them from being tampered with in transit. On the report of the public analyst or the Director of the Central Food Laboratory as the case may be the fate of the accused hangs. It is therefore obligatory to protect the interest of the accused to see that the sample sent for analysis is properly secured in order to prevent its being tampered with because non-performance of the various obligations cast as per the rule to carry out double safe-guard may result in injustice to the accused. The language of the rule itself contains an indication that the rule is a mandatory one and is intended to provide a double safeguard in the manner of packing and sealing. The view that the said rule is mandatory has been expressed in clear terms in a decision of this court in Jethalal v. Baroda Municipal Corporation 19 G.L.R. 448 and we respectfully agree with the same.