LAWS(MPH)-1982-12-28

STATE OF M.P. Vs. KANTILAL JAIN

Decided On December 10, 1982
STATE OF M.P. Appellant
V/S
KANTILAL JAIN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 4-6-1976, the Food Inspector had purchased a sample of mustard oil from the respondent-accused and after completing the prescribed formalities had sent the sample to the Public Analyst, who vide his report dated 22-7-1976, found the sample below the prescribed standard The respondent-accused was hence put up for trial for adulteration in the mustard oil.

(2.) In the trial Court, the attesting witnesses hid not corroborated the Food Inspector in the matter of taking of the sample and, therefore it was held that the sale of the sample by the respondent-accused was not satisfactorily proved beyond the pale of suspicion. It was also held that the sealing of the sample was without any cogent proof.

(3.) The factum of the purchase of the sample by the Food Inspector is no doubt proved from the oral testimony of the Food Inspector, Gopal Singh Yadav (PW 1), and on the strength of very many documents which were prepared by him and were duly signed not only by the respondent-accused but also by the panch witnesses (Exs. P/1 to P/4). No doubt, the panch witnesses are found to have turned hositle but this usual' happens in the matter of Panch witnesses who are found to have no regard for truth. There is nothing in the statement of the Food Inspector to doubt his veracity. He has no animus against the respondent-accused. Hence disagreeing with the trial Court, I hold that the Food Inspector had duly purchased the sample of mustard oil after payment of the price therefore. There is also no substance in the contention that the samples were not duly scaled. The Public Analyst's report clearly shows that he had received the sample in a duly sealed condition and that the seal impressions thereon had tallied with the specimen impressions of the seal which had been separately received by him. However, there is no proof of any compliance of Sec. 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act which requires that the Local (Health) Authority, after the the institution of the prosecution, should forward to him the copy of the result of the analysis with the direction that within ten days of the receipt of such copy, one may, if so likes, get the sample further analysed by the Control Food Laboratory Non-compliance of Sec. 13(2) of the Act which is mandatory in its import, operates prejudice to the accused inasmuch as he is deprived of the opportunity as of right to get the sample analysed by the Central Food Laboratory. In view of this failure on the part of the Local (Health) Authority, the acquittal of the accused does not require to be interfered with.