R G BENDBAR Vs. HEMANTKUMAR S PARIKH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The original complainant - Food Inspector has preferred this appeal against the order of acquittal recorded against the original accused Nos.1 and 2 who are respondents No.1 and 2. The respondents No.1 and 2 were tried for an offence u/s 7 punishable under section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1958 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'].

(2.) From the record, the facts emerges are as under:- The respondent - accused No.1 [hereinafter referred to as 'the accused'] was at the relevant time dealing in articles of food. On 6/1/1987, the Food Inspector in discharge of his duties, after soliciting the services of a panch witness collected a sample of edible oil at about 10.15 hrs. The edible oil was in a tin. The respondent - accused No.1 was informed about the fact that the sample was required to be collected for the purpose of analysis. 375 Grams of groundnut oil was taken as a sample. The sample so collected was divided in three clean dry bottles which were sealed in accordance with the provisions contained in the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules [hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules']. After sealing the sample bottles, the complainant forwarded one sample bottle to the public analyst in accordance with the Rules. The public analyst Mr. S.M.Shah received the sample and the receipt of which is produced vide exh.28. The remaining two samples were forwarded to the Local Health Authority in accordance with the Rules. The receipt issued by the Local Health Authority is produced vide exh.29. The Public Analyst Report, produced on record vide exh.39 revealed that the sample did not confirm to the standards laid down in the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the Rules. It appears that, after receipt of the report and after obtaining the consent as required u/s 20 of the Act, complaint was filed. It appears that at the time of collecting sample, the accused No.1 disclosed to the complainant that the accused No.1 purchased the groundnut oil, from which sample was taken, from one Thakar Jayendrakumar Kantilal. Accused No.1 pointed out the bill to the complainant and after taking the xerox copy of the said bill, the original was returned to the accused. It is in view of this material produced by the accused No.1, the complainant also joined accused No.2. It is this accused No.2 who gave an application to the Court for forwarding the sample to the Central Food Laboratory. The Court called for the sample from the Local Health Authority and forwarded the sample to the Central Food Laboratory vide exh.12. Central Food Laboratory forwarded its report. Reading the report, it is clear that the sample was forwarded with the memorandum of the Court and was in a condition fit for analysis. About the conditions of the seals on the container and outer cover, on receipt it is pointed out that all the seals of sample container were intact and unbroken. The seal fixed on the container and the outer cover of the sample tallied with the specimen. Impression of the seal on the memorandum separately forwarded. Central Food Laboratory has opined that the sample did not confirm to the standard of groundnut oil laid down in item A.17.3 of PFA Rules [1955], inasmuch as [1] Iodine value was above the maximum prescribed limit [2] Bellier turbidity temperature was less than the minimum prescribed limit, [3] sample gave positive halphen test. The colour obtained in the test was above the tolerance limit allowed under Rule 44[e] of the PFA Rules [1955]. The Central Food Laboratory opined that the sample was adulterated. It appears that, before the trial Court, it was submitted that the sample was not collected in the manner provided in the Rules. However, looking to the evidence, the Court has not accepted the same. It was submitted before the trial Court that the sealing, packing etc. were done by the peon. However, the trial Court rejected the contention as the procedure was followed in presence of the complainant and as per his direction. Looking to the evidence of complainant which is in detail, it is clear that procedure for collecting the sample and forwarding the same has been followed and there is no merit in the contention with regard to the procedure being not followed while collecting the sample from the accused No.1 or forwarding the same to the authority and Public Analyst. The trial Court has rightly not accepted the contention that the sample was not collected in accordance with law. From the evidence, it is clear that the sample was collected in accordance with rules and was also forwarded in accordance with the Rules to the Public Analyst, Local [Health] Authority and Central Food Laboratory.

(3.) . It appears that the trial Court has erred in acquitting the accused on the ground that the consent accorded by the competent authority is not in accordance with law. Mr. Desai, learned advocate appearing for the complainant submitted that, in the case of A.K.Roy v/s State of Punjab reported in AIR 1986 SC 210, on which reliance is placed by the trial Court for acquitting the accused has been considered by the Apex Court in case of Suresh H. Rajput V/s Bharatiben Pravinbhai reported in AIR 1990 SC 283. The Court observed in para - 9 as under:- "