STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. HARSADBHAI KANTILAL BHIA PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The judgment and order dated 30/04/2015 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ankleshwar in Criminal Case No. 4747 of 2010 recording the acquittal of the respondents for the offences punishable under Sections 7 (1) and 7 (5) read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, is sought to be assailed in the accompanying appeal, after securing the leave of this Court as required under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the Cr.PC).

(2.) Having considered the rival contentions, concededly the food in question was packed drinking water which bore 29/05/2010 as the date of manufacture with the expiry date being three months of the said date. The report from the Local Health Authority was obtained on 07/07/2010 and the case was lodged on 23/12/2010 i.e. beyond the date of expiry of the product. Section 11 obligates collection of sample and its division into three parts for three different purposes; one of being the dispatch of the sample to the Central Food Laboratory for its analysis at the instance of the accused. This purpose could have only been achieved, if the case was lodged during the subsistence of the life of the product allowing sufficient time for the product to be reanalyzed under Section 13(2), before expiry of its life. In the instant case, such period expired on 28/08/2010. Post the said date, the product was not good for consumption and it was prone to natural hazards. Therefore, in all probabilities such a sample would fail the scientific test. Thus, lodgment of the case beyond the date of expiry of the product had caused prejudice to the right of the accused as is made available to him under Section 13 (2) of the PFA Act. The case was thus bad on the very inception.

(3.) Having regard to the facts and circumstances discussed above, this Court is at pains to express the displeasure qua the manner in which the case has been dealt with by the Food Inspector and other Authorities contemplated under the PFA Act. The sample was taken on 01/06/2010 which prescribed the date of manufacture as 29/05/2010 and the life for consumption of the product was a period of three months thereof i.e. 28/08/2010. The said sample was promptly sent to the Local Health Authority, which received it on 07/06/2010 for analysis. Unfortunately, without being conscious to the date of expiry of the product, the Local Health Authority consumed about a month before submitting its report on 07/07/2010. If prompt action was taken even on 07/07/2010, the rest of the procedure could have been completed on priority, but that was not done even as the Food Inspector consumed one more month before deciding to secure the information of the firm involved in the case under Section 14A of the PFA Act. He received such information on 17/09/2010 and by that date, the product had already expired. That date itself ensured the impossibility of compliance with Section 13 (2) of the PFA Act; inasmuch as, as discussed above, even according to the manufacturer, it was not good for consumption and thus it was prone to natural hazards and risks and would not in all possibility pass the prescribed test under the Act. However, the Food Inspector again consumed about a month for the purpose of moving the competent Authority for sanction which was granted only after about one and a half month by the sanctioning Authority. 22 days more were consumed by the Food Inspector before the complaint came to be lodged on 23/12/2010.