R/CR.

MA/1821/2002

CAV JUDGMENT

INTHEHIGHCOURTOFGUJARATATAHMEDABAD
CRIMINALMISC.APPLICATIONNO.1821of2002
with
CRIMINALMISC.APPLICATIONNO.1822of2002

FORAPPROVALANDSIGNATURE:

HONOURABLEMR.JUSTICEJ.B.PARDIWALA

=========================================
1 WhetherReportersofLocalPapersmaybeallowedtoseethejudgment?
2 TobereferredtotheReporterornot?
3 WhethertheirLordshipswishtoseethefaircopyofthejudgment?
4 Whetherthiscaseinvolvesasubstantialquestionoflawastotheinterpretationofthe
ConstitutionofIndia,1950oranyordermadethereunder?
5 Whetheritistobecirculatedtotheciviljudge?

=========================================
PEPSICO.INDIAHOLDINGSLTD
THRO'ITSOFFICERVINAYMATHUR&1....Applicant(s)
Versus
STATEOFGUJARAT&1....Respondent(s)
=========================================
Appearance:
MRSVRAJU,ADVOCATEfortheApplicant(s)No.12
MRKISHAH,ADVOCATEfortheRespondent(s)No.2
MRRRMARSHALL,ADVOCATEfortheRespondent(s)No.2
PUBLICPROSECUTORfortheRespondent(s)No.1

=========================================

CORAM:HONOURABLEMR.JUSTICEJ.B.PARDIWALA
Date:11/12/2014

CAVJUDGMENT
Sincethechallengeinboththecaptionedapplicationsistoaselfsame

complaint, those were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this
commonjudgmentandorder.

Page 1 of 26

R/CR.MA/1821/2002

1.

CAV JUDGMENT

The applicants (original accused) have filed these applications under

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (for short the Code)
invokinginherentpowersofthisCourtprayingthatthecomplaintbeingFood
AdulterationCaseno.55/2000pendingintheCourtoftheJudicialMagistrate
FirstClass(Municipal),Surat,bequashed.
2.

ItappearsfromthematerialsonrecordthatoneA.S.Licencewala,aFood

Inspector serving with the Surat Municipal Corporation lodged a private

complaintintheCourtoftheJMFC(Municipal),Suratagainst12accusedofthe
offence punishable under Sections 7 and 16 of the Prevention of Food
AdulterationAct,1954.
3.

Theaccusedno.1inthecomplaintistheWholesalercarryingonbusiness

inthenameoftheKamalEnterpriseandtheaccusedno.2istheSalesManager
oftheaccusedno.1.Theaccusedno.3isaColdStoragefirmandtheaccused
nos.4to9arethepartnersoftheaccusednos.1and3firms.Theaccusedno.10
isacompanywhomanufacturestheproductofaeratedwaterlikePepsi,7UP,
Miranda,Sliceetc. Theaccusedno.11isthenomineeoftheaccusedno.10
company.
4.

Itappearsthaton29thNovember,1997thecomplainantvisitedthefirm

oftheaccusedno.1andatthatpointoftimetheaccusedno.2waspresentand
wassellingtheproductsmanufacturedbytheaccusedno.10likePepsi,7up,
Mirandaetc. Thecomplainantwantedtodrawasampleforthepurposeof
analysisandtherefore,hecalledoneperson,namely,RajubhaiC.Thakkarasa
panch witness. The complainant collected six bottles of 500 ml. of printed
crownofLaherPepsiandthesameweresealedandpackedandthereafterwere
sentforanalysis.ThecomplainantreceivedthereportfromthePublicAnalyst
dated8/1/1998certifyingthattheproductwasfoundtobeadulterated. The
PublicAnalystcertifiedthattheaeratedwaterhadexcessiveimpurityinthe
formofFloatedFaculentGelatin.

Page 2 of 26

R/CR.MA/1821/2002

5.

CAV JUDGMENT

ItappearsthatonreceiptofthePublicAnalystreportthecomplainant

applied for sanction under section 20 of the Act for the purpose of filing
complaint against the accused persons. The Surat Municipal Corporation
accordedsanctiondated15thJune,2000asprayedforbythecomplainantand
thereafteron18thSeptember,2000thecomplaintwaslodgedintheCourtof
theJMFC(Municipal),Surat.
6.

The learned JMFC vide order dated 18th September, 2000 took

cognizance upon the complaint and ordered issue of bailable warrant of

Rs.3,000/againsteachoftheaccusedoftheoffencepunishableunderSec.16
r/wsec.7oftheAct,1954.
7.

The Misc. Criminal Application No.1821/2002 is filed by the original

accusednos.10and11i.e.PepsiColaIndiaHoldingsLtd.,themanufacturerof
theaeratedwateranditsnominee. WhereastheMisc.CriminalApplication
No.1822/2002isfiledbyoriginalaccusednos.1to9i.e.theWholesaler,Sales
Manager,ColdStorageasapartnershipfirmandthepartnersofthepartnership
firm.
8.

ItalsoappearsfromthematerialsonrecordthattheapplicantsofMisc.

Criminal Application No.1822/2002 had filed an application for

discharge/dropping of the proceedings before the learned Magistrate vide
applicationExh.67,however,thesaidapplicationwasorderedtoberejected
videorderdated21stApril,2001.AgainstthesaidordertheaccusedNos.1to9
had filed Criminal Revision Application No.56/2001 and the said revision
applicationwasalsoorderedtoberejectedvideorderdated28thJanuary,2002.
9.

SubmissionsonbehalfofthePetitioners:

9.1

Mr.Bhadrish Raju, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the

applicantsvehementlysubmittedthattherehasbeenagrossdelayinfilingthe
complaintasthesamplesweredrawnon29thJanuary,1997andthePublic

Page 3 of 26

R/CR.MA/1821/2002

CAV JUDGMENT

Analystreportisdated8thJanuary,1998,Hesubmitsthatthecomplaintwas
filedon18thJanuary,2000i.e.nearlyalmostafter3yearsfromthedateof
drawingofthesamples.Hesubmitsthatonsuchgroundalonethecomplaint
deservestobequashed. Mr.Rajufurthersubmitsthattheproductinquestion
was manufactured on 15th October, 1997 and the notice for reanalysis,
mandatorilyrequiredunderSec.13(2)oftheActisdated21stSeptember,2000.
Hesubmitsthattheproductwasthreeyearsoldwhentheaccusedpersonswere
asked to exercise their right of getting the sample reanalyzed through the
CentralFoodsLaboratory.Hesubmitsthatthereanalysisofthesampleaftera
periodofthreeyearswouldbenothingbutanexerciseinfutility.
9.2

Mr. Raju's main bone of contention is that the right of the accused

conferredunderSection13(2)oftheActtogetthesampleoftheproductLaher
Pepsi reanalysed through the Central Food Laboratory was frustrated on
accountofgrossdelayonthepartofthecomplainantinfilingofthecomplaint.
9.3

Mr.Raju submits that the date of manufacture was well within the

knowledgeoftherespondentno.2andwasdulynotedbyhiminFormVIthatis
issuedtotheVendoratthetimeofthesamplingoftheproduct.Therespondent
no.2inthesaidFormVIhadnotedthelabelindetail,buttheBestBeforehad
notbeennotedwhereasthesampledproductwasBestBefore6monthsfrom
thedateofmanufacture.
9.4

HesubmitsthattheproductssuchastheSweetenedCarbonatedWater

arebestbefore6monthsfromthedateofmanufactureonly.Inthepresentcase
sincethedateofmanufactureofproductis15thOctober,1997itcouldbesaid
tobeBestBeforeonlytill15thApril,1998.

9.5

Mr.RajualsosubmittedthatthereportoftheCentralFoodLaboratory

notedYeastandMouldCount/Ml.725asagainst2.ThereportofthePublic
AnalystissilentsofarasthecontentsnotedbytheCentralFoodLaboratoryis

Page 4 of 26

R/CR.MA/1821/2002

CAV JUDGMENT

concerned.
9.6

Mr.RajuhasplacedstrongrelianceonadecisionoftheSupreme

CourtinthecaseofGirishbhaiDahyabhaiShahVs.C.C.Jani&anotherreported
in (2009) 15 SCC 64. He has also placed reliance on the decision of the
Supreme Court in the case of Northern Minerals Ltd., Vs. Union of India &
another(2010)7SCC726.ThedecisionoftheSupremeCourtinthecaseof
NorthernMinerals(Supra.)isrelatingtotheprovisionsoftheInsecticidesAct,
1968.
10.

Submissionsonbehalfofthecomplainant:

10.1

Mr. Vishwas Shah, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the

complainant,hasvehementlyopposedthisapplicationsubmittingthatthedelay
ingrantingofsanctionwasduetothefactthatattherelevanttimei.e.from
June,1998,thepowertoaccordsanctionwasdelegatedtotheMedicalHealth
Officer,SuratMunicipalCorporation,however,theMedicalHealthOfficerwas
suspendedfromhisserviceinthemonthofSeptember,1998andthereafter,the
powerwasnotdelegatedtoanyotherofficerduringthatperiod.Lateronthe
power to accord sanction under the Act was delegated to the Deputy
Commissioner,Health&Hospital,SuratMunicipalCorporation,inthemonthof
February,2000.Afterthedelegationofthepower,thesanctionwasaccordedin
thepresentcaseandaccordinglythecomplaintwaslodgedon18thSeptember,
2000.
10.2

Mr.Shahsubmitsthatthedelay,ifany,isnogroundforquashingthe

complaint,moreparticularlywhentheCentralFoodLaboratoryhascertifiedthe
sampleasfitforanalysisandcertifiedthatthesamplewasadulterated.
10.3

Mr. Shah submits that once the Central Food Laboratory found the

samplefitforanalysisandwasfoundtobeadulterated,theprincipalargument
canvassedonbehalfoftheaccusedregardingprejudiceshouldfail. Mr.Shah

Page 5 of 26

R/CR.MA/1821/2002

CAV JUDGMENT

submitsthatSec.20Aof theActcanbepressedintoserviceonlywhenthe
offenceundertheActisallegedtohavebeencommittedbyanypersonnot
beingamanufacturer,distributorordealerofanyfood.Insuchcircumstances,
ifapersonwhoisthemanufacturer,distributorordealeroffood,commitsthe
offence under the Act then it could not be said that having regard to the
embargounderSec.20AoftheAct,theycannotbeimpleadedasaccused.
10.4

Mr. Shah in support of his submissions has placed reliance on the

followingdecisions:
i)

GangaihnaiduRamakrishna&Ors.Vs.StateofA.P.RepresentedbyFood
InspectorDivisionIIMANU/AP/1110/2005.

ii)

HyderabadBeveragesPvt.Ltd.,etc.Vs.StateofA.P.
2006Cri.LawJournal3988

11.

Havingheardthelearnedcounselappearingforthepartiesandhaving

gone through the materials on record, the only question that falls for my
considerationiswhetherthecomplaintshouldbequashed.
12.

Before adverting to the rival submissions canvassed on either sides, I

deemitnecessarytolooktheintofewrelevantprovisionsoflaw.
"14.Section2(ia)ofthePreventionofFoodAdulterationAct,1954defines
'adulterated'tomean:
"(ia)"adulterated"anarticleoffoodshallbedeemedtobeadulterated
(a)ifthearticlesoldbyavendorisnotofthenature,substanceorquality
demandedbythepurchaserandistohisprejudice,orisnotofthenature,
substanceorqualitywhichitpurportsorisrepresentedtobe;
(b) if the article contains any other substance which affects, or if the
article is so processed as to affect, injuriously the nature, substance or
qualitythereof;
(c)ifanyinferiororcheapersubstancehasbeensubstitutedwhollyorin
part for the article so as to affect injuriously the nature, substance or
qualitythereof;

Page 6 of 26

R/CR.MA/1821/2002

CAV JUDGMENT

(d)ifanyconstituentofthearticlehasbeenwhollyorinpartabstracted
soastoaffectinjuriouslythenature,substanceorqualitythereof;
(e) if the article had been prepared, packed or kept under insanitary
conditionswherebyithasbecomecontaminatedorinjurioustohealth;
(f)ifthearticleconsists whollyorinpartofanyfilthy, putrid, rotten,
decomposedordiseasedanimalorvegetablesubstanceorisinsectinfested
orisotherwiseunfitforhumanconsumption;
(g)ifthearticleisobtainedfromadiseasedanimal;
(h)ifthearticlecontainsanypoisonousorotheringredientwhichrenders
itinjurioustohealth;
(i)ifthecontainerofthearticleiscomposed,whetherwhollyorinpart,of
anypoisonousordeleterioussubstancewhichrendersitscontentsinjurious
tohealth
(j)ifanycolouringmatterotherthanthatprescribedinrespectthereofis
presentinthearticle,oriftheamountsoftheprescribedcolouringmatter
which is present in the article are not within the prescribed limits of
variability;
(k) if the article contains any prohibited preservative or permitted
preservativeinexcessoftheprescribedlimits;
(l)ifthequalityorpurityofthearticlefallsbelowtheprescribedstandard
oritsconstituentsarepresentinquantitiesnotwithintheprescribedlimits
ofvariability,whichrendersitinjurioustohealth;
(m) if the quality or purity of the article falls below the prescribed
standard or its constituents are present in quantities not within the
prescribedlimitsofvariabilitybutwhichdoesnotrenderitinjuriousto
health: Provided that, where the quality or purity of the article, being
primaryfood,hasfallenbelowtheprescribedstandardsoritsconstituents
arepresentinquantitiesnotwithintheprescribedlimitsofvariability,in
eithercase,solelyduetonaturalcausesandbeyondthecontrolofhuman
agency,then,sucharticleshallnotbedeemedtobeadulteratedwithinthe
meaningofthissubclause.
Explanation Where two or more articles of primary food are mixed
togetherandtheresultantarticleoffood
(a) is stored, sold or distributed under a name which denotes the
ingredientsthereof;and

Page 7 of 26

R/CR.MA/1821/2002

CAV JUDGMENT

(b) is not injurious to health, then, such resultant article shall not be
deemedtobeadulteratedwithinthemeaningofthisclause."
15. Under Section 7, no person shall himself, or byany person on his
behalf,manufactureforsale,orstore,sellordistributeanyadulterated
food.Section8empowerstheCentralandStateGovernmentstoappoint
PublicAnalysts.Section11prescribestheproceduretobefollowedbyFood
Inspectorswhiletakingsamplesoffoodforanalysis.Section13relatesto
thereportofthePublicAnalyst.Undersubsection(1)thereof,thePublic
Analystshalldeliver,insuchformasmaybeprescribed,areporttothe
Local(Health)Authorityoftheresultoftheanalysisofanyarticleoffood
submitted to him for analysis. Under subsection (2), on receipt of the
reportoftheresultoftheanalysisundersubsection(1),totheeffectthat
thearticleoffoodisadulterated,theLocal(Health)Authorityshall,after
institutionofprosecutionagainstthepersonsfromwhomthesampleof
thearticleoffoodwastaken,andtheperson,ifany,whosename,address
andotherparticularshavebeendisclosedunderSection14A,forward,in
suchmannerasmaybeprescribed,acopyofthereportoftheresultofthe
analysistosuchperson orpersons, asthecasemaybe,informing such
personorpersonsthat,ifitissodesired,eitherorbothofthemmaymake
anapplicationtotheCourtwithinaperiodof10daysfromthedateof
receiptofthecopyofthereporttogetthesampleofthearticleoffoodkept
bytheLocal(Health)AuthorityanalysedbytheCentralFoodLaboratory.
Undersubsection(2A),whenanapplicationismadetotheCourtunder
subsection (2), the Court shall require thelocal (Health) Authority to
forwardthepartorpartsofthesamplekeptbythesaidAuthorityand
upon suchrequisition being made, thesaidAuthorityshallforward the
partorpartsofthesampletotheCourtwithinaperiodoffivedaysfrom
thedateofsuchrequisition.Undersubsection(2B),onreceiptofthepart
orpartsofthesamplefromtheLocal(Health)Authority,theCourtshall
after ascertaining that the mark and seal areintact and not tampered
with, dispatchtheparttotheDirector oftheCentral Food Laboratory,
whoshallthereuponsendacertificatetotheCourtintheprescribedform
within one month from the date of receipt of the part of the sample
specifyingtheresultoftheanalysis.Undersubsection(2D),untilreceipt
of the certificate of the result of the analysis from the Director of the
Central Food Laboratory, the Court shall not continue with the
proceedingsbeforeitinrelationtotheprosecution.Section13(3)provides
thatthecertificateissuedbytheDirectoroftheCentralFoodLaboratory,
under subsection (2B), shall supersede the report given by the public
analyst under subsection (1). Under Section 14, no manufacturer or
distributorof,ordealerinanyarticleoffoodshallsellsucharticletoany
vendor,unlesshealsogivesawarrantyinwritingintheprescribedform
about the nature and quality of such article to the vendor. Proviso
thereunderprescribesthatabill,cashmemorandumorinvoiceinrespect
ofthesaleofanyarticleoffoodgivenbyamanufacturerordistributorof,

Page 8 of 26

R/CR.MA/1821/2002

CAV JUDGMENT

ordealerin,sucharticletothevendor thereofshallbedeemedtobea
warranty.Section14Arequireseveryvendorofanarticleoffood,ifso
required, todisclose tothefood inspector thename, address and other
particularsofthepersonfromwhomhepurchasedthearticleoffood.
16. Rule 2(d) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955
(hereinafterreferredtoasthe"Rules"),defines'Form'tomeanaFormset
forthinAppendixAtotheRules.Rule4relatestoanalysisoffoodsamples
andreadsthus:
"Analysisoffoodsamples:
(1)(a)Samplesoffoodforanalysisundersubsection(2)ofSection13of
theActshallbesenteitherthroughamessengerorbyregisteredpostina
sealed packet, enclosed together with a memorandum in Form I in an
outercoveraddressedtotheDirector.
(b)Samplesoffoodforanalysisundersubsection(2)ofSection6ofthe
Actorunderclause(a)ofRule3shallbesenteitherthroughamessenger
or by registered post in a sealed packet enclosed together with a
memoranduminForm1AinanoutercoveraddressedtotheDirector.
(2) The container as well as the outer covering of the packet shall be
markedwithadistinguishingnumber.
(3)Acopy ofthememorandum and aspecimen impression oftheseal
used to seal the container and the cover shall be sent separately by
registeredposttotheDirector.
(4)OnreceiptofapackagecontainingasampleforanalysistheDirector
oranofficerauthorizedbyhim,shallcomparethesealsonthecontainer
andtheoutercoverwithspecimenimpressionreceivedseparatelyandshall
notetheconditionofthesealsthereon.
(5)Aftertestoranalysis,thecertificatethereofshallbesuppliedforthwith
tothesenderinFormII.
(6)Thefeespayableinrespectofsuchacertificateshallbe"Rs.1000"per
sampleoffoodanalysed.
(7)CertificatesissuedundertheserulesbytheLaboratoryshallbesigned
bytheDirector.
(8) The fee payable in respect of analysis of samples of imported food
analysed in any designated laboratory shall be Rs. 3000 per sample
payablebytheimporter."
17.Rule5providesthatthestandardsofqualityofthevariousarticlesof
foodspecifiedinAppendixBtotheRulesareasdefinedinthatappendix.

Page 9 of 26

R/CR.MA/1821/2002

CAV JUDGMENT

Rule6prescribesthequalificationofaPublicAnalystandRule7,which
prescribesthedutiesofaPublicAnalyst,readsthus:
"Dutiesofpublicanalyst:
(1)OnreceiptofapackagecontainingasampleforanalysisfromaFood
Inspectororanyotherpersonthepublicanalystoranofficerauthorisedby
himshallcomparetheseals onthecontainer and theouter cover with
specimenimpressionreceivedseparatelyandshallnotetheconditionofthe
sealsthereon.Providedthatincasesamplecontainerreceivedbythepublic
analystisfoundtobeinbrokenconditionorunfitforanalysisheshall
within a period of seven days from the date of receipt of such sample
informtheLocal(Health)Authorityaboutthesameandsendrequisition
tohimforsendingsecondpartofthesample.
(2)Thepublicanalystshallcausetobeanalysedsuchsamplesofarticles
offoodasmaybesenttohimbyFoodInspectororbyanyotherperson
undertheAct.
(3)Thepublicanalystshall,withinaperiodof(fortydays)fromthedate
ofreceiptofanysampleforanalysis,(sendbyregisteredpostorbyhand)
totheLocal(Health)Authorityareportoftheresultofsuchanalysisin
FormIII:Providedthatwhereanysuchsampledoesnotconformtothe
provisions of the Act or these rules, the public analyst shall (send by
registered post or by hand) four copies of such report to the said
Authority:Providedfurtherthatthepublicanalystshallforwardacopyof
such report also to the person who purchased an article of food and
forwardedthesametohimforanalysisunderSection12oftheAct.
Note:IncaseofsamplereceivedundertheprovisoofRule7(1)orRule9
A,theperiodoffortydaysshallbecountedfromthedateofreceiptofthe
secondpartofthesample."
18.Rule9Arelatestosending ofsamplesbyLocal(Health)Authority,
andreadsthus:
"9A.SendingofsamplebyLocal(Health)Authority:
(a)Local(Health)Authorityshallwithinaperiodofsevendaysofreceipt
ofrequisitionforsecondpartofthesamplefrompublicanalystunderthe
provisoofRule7(1),sendsuchsampletothepublicanalyst.
(b) Local (Health) Authority, while sending second part of the sample
undertheprovisionofsubsection(2E)ofSection13oftheAct,shalldo
sowithinaperiodof20daysfromthedateofreceiptofthereportfrom
thefirstpublicanalyst."
Rule12providesthatthenoticeofintentiontotakesampleforanalysis

Page 10 of 26

R/CR.MA/1821/2002

CAV JUDGMENT

shouldbegiveninFormVI.Rule12Arelatestowarrantyandthereunder
everymanufacturer, distributor ordealer selling anarticleoffood toa
vendorshallgiveeitherseparatelyorinthebill,cashmemooralabela
warranty in Form VIA. Rule 14 prescribes the manner of sending the
sampleforanalysis.Rule22relatestothequantityofthesample.
13.

AsnotedaboveAppendixAcontainstheforms.FormIIisthecertificate

ofanalysisbytheCentralFoodLaboratory,underRule4(5)andreadsasunder:
FormII
(SeeRule4(5))
(CertificateofanalysisbytheCentralFoodLaboratory)
CertificateNo.....................
Certifiedthatthesamplebearingnumber..........................purportingto
be a sample of...................... was received on............................. with
Memorandum No. .................. dated............................
from.............................(nameoftheCourt)........................foranalysis.
Theconditionofsealsonthecontainerandtheoutercoveringonreceipt
wasasfollows:
.....................................................................
I......................... (name of the Director)........................... found the
sampletobe........................(categoryofthefoodsample).......................
fallingunderItemNo...................................of*AppendixBofPrevention
ofFoodAdulterationRules.
1955/*proprietaryfood. Thesample wasinacondition fitforanalysis
and has been analysed on......................... (Give date of starting and
completionofanalysis)...................andtheresultofitsanalysisisgiven
below/*wasnotinaconditionfitforanalysisforReasons:
AnalysisReport:
(i)SampleDescription:
(ii)PhysicalAppearance:
(iii)Label:
Sr.No.Quality
per:

NameofMethod

Result Prescribed Standards as

Characteristicsoftestused (a)ItemAofAppendix'B'
(b)Asperlabeldeclarationforproprietaryfoods
(c)AsperprovisionsoftheActandRules,forbothabove.
1.
2.
3.
4.

Page 11 of 26

R/CR.MA/1821/2002

CAV JUDGMENT

5.
6.
Opinion**
Place:
Date: CentralFoodLaboratory(Seal)

(Signature)
Director

20.ItisnecessarytonotethatFormIIwassubstitutedbyG.S.R.No.530
(E) dated 2972002 with effect from 2912003. Under Form II the
Central Food Laboratory is, among others, required to certify as to
whetherthesamplewasinaconditionfitforanalysisorwasnotfitfor
analysis.Whereasampleisnotinaconditionfitforanalysis,thereasons
thereforearealsorequiredtobestatedinthecertificate.
14.

Since the learned counsel appearing for the accused has also placed

relianceontheprovisionsoftheInsecticidesAct,1968,Imaylookintofewof
the relevant provisions of the Act. Sec.24(3) and (4) of the Act reads as
follows:
"Sec.24.ReportofInsecticideAnalyst
3.AnydocumentpurportingtobeareportsignedbyanInsecticideAnalyst
shall be evidence of facts stated therein, and such evidence shall be
conclusiveunlessthepersonfromwhomthesamplewastakenhaswithin
twentyeightdaysofthereceiptofacopyofthereportnotifiedinwriting
the Insecticide Inspector or the Court before which any proceeding in
respectofthesamplearependingthatheintendstoadduceevidencein
contraventionofthereport.
4.UnlessthesamplehasalreadybeentestedoranalyzedintheCentral
InsecticidesLaboratory,whereapersonhasundersubsection(3)notified
his intention of adducing evidence in contravention of the insecticide
analystsreporttheCourtmay,ofitsownmotionoritsdiscretionatthe
requesteitherofthecomplainantoroftheaccused,causethesampleofthe
insecticideproducedbeforetheMagistrateundersubsection(6)ofSec.22
tobesentfortestoranalysistothelaboratory,whichshallmakethetest
oranalysisandreportinwritingsignedby,orundertheauthorityof,the
Director of Central Insecticides Laboratory the result thereof, and such
reportshallbeconclusiveevidenceofthefactsstatedtherein."
15.

Imaynowlookintothetworeports,oneofthePublicAnalystandthe

otheroftheCentralFoodLaboratory.

Page 12 of 26

R/CR.MA/1821/2002

CAV JUDGMENT

FORMII
(CertificateoftestoranalysisbytheCentralFoodLaboratory,Calcutta)
CertificateNo.G.141/2000(Pt.
Certifiedthatthesample(s),bearingnumber3/MDH&LHA/SMC/J1_8
(asonlabel)purportingtobeasampleofLaherPepsireceivedon4.12.00with
Memorandum No. 424/2000 dated 24.11.2000 from Shri P. H. Gohil,
JudicialMagistrate,1stClass,MunicipalCorporation,Suratwasinacondition
fitforanalysisandhavebeentested/analysedandthattheresult/resultsof
suchtest(s)/analysisis/arestatedbelow:
(i) PhysicalExaminations(includinglabeldeclarations) : 500mlsampleof
Laherpepsiisinasealedglassbottlewithlabeldeclaration.
Totalplatecount/ml.
:
45
Colaformcount/100ml
:
Absent
Yeast&mouldcount/ml
:
725
TestforCarbondioxide
:
Positive
TotalSugar(expressedasSucrese):9.8%
Artificial Swetteners (Saccharin, acesulfame & Aspertame) :
Absent
Caffeine:

112.23ppm

Addedcolour:Absent
Opinion:ThesampleofLaherPepsiisadulterated.
2.Theconditionofthesealsonthecontainerandtheoutercoveringonreceipt
wasasfollows:
Thesealswereintactandtalliedwiththespecimenimpressionofseals
separatelyalongwithcopyofthememorandum.
Place:CALCUTTA.
Date:

Sd/(illegible)
(Dr.__Chakrabarti)
Director
CentralFoodLaboratory,Calcutta
S.M.C._______________001095
SURATMUNICIPALCORPORATION
ReportbythePublicAnalyst

Page 13 of 26

R/CR.MA/1821/2002

CAV JUDGMENT

ReportNo.PHL/J132/9798
IherebycertifythatI,ShriR.M.RayM.Sc.TechnicalAssistant,Public
Health Laboratory, Surat Municipal Corporation, Public Analyst for Surat
Municipalarea,dulyappointedundertheprovisionofthePreventionofFood
AdulterationAct,1954,receivedonthe1stdayofDecember97fromFood
Inspector,SuratMunicipalareaShriA.S.LincewalaasampleofLaharPepsi
SweetendCarbonatedBeveragesbeingcodenumberandserialnumber3/M.O.
H.&L.H.A./S.M.C./______J/130____ofLocalHealthAuthority,
Placeofcollection:SuratCityArea.
Foranalysis,properlysealedandfastenedandthatIfoundthesealintact
andunbroken.
Thesealsfixedonthecontainerandtheoutercoverofthesampletallied
withthespecimenImpressionofthesealseparatelysentbythefoodInspector
andthesamplewasinaconditionfitforanalysis.
IfurthercertifythatIhadcausedtobeanalyzedtheaforementioned
sample,anddeclaretheresultoftheanalysistobeasfollows:
ResultofAnalysis

P.F.A.limits.

Macroscopy:Sealedbottlesof500ml.capacity

floatingimpurityinabundancein

theformofflocullentgelations

particles.
ArtificialSwetteningAgent.Absent
Colour..Permittedfoodcolour
Present.

Absent
Permittedfoodcolour
Maybeused.

TotalSugar.9.7%..
(expressedasSucrose)

5%(Min.)

(TheslipofLocalHealthAuthorityandtheSignatureofthevendoron
thewrapperofthecontainerwereasperrules)
andIamoftheopinionthatthesampleofLaharPepsiSweetendCarbonated
BeveragesdoesnotconfirmtotheprovisionslaiddownunderPreventionof
AdulterationAct1954&isadulteratedaccordingtoRule2(ia)(e)Definitions.
Signedthis8thdayofJanuary1998

Page 14 of 26

R/CR.MA/1821/2002

:Address:
PublicHealthLaboratory
SURAT.

CAV JUDGMENT

Sd/(illegible)
PublicAnalyst,
SuratMunicipalCorporationArea,
SURAT

ADULTERATIONOFFENCESSTRICTLIABILITY
16.

Adulterationoffoodisamenacetopublichealth.ThePreventionofFood

AdulterationActhasbeenenactedwiththeaimoferadicatingthatantisocial
evilandforensuringpurityinthearticlesoffood.(IsharDasv.StateofPunjab,
AIR 1972 SC 1295 : (1972 Cri LJ 874)). The object and purpose of the
AdulterationActistoeliminatedangertohumanlifeandhealthfromthesaleof
unwholesomearticlesoffood.(MunicipalCorpn.ofDelhiv.ShivShanker,1971
(1)SCC442:(1971CriLJ680)).StrictadherencetothePreventionofFood
AdulterationActandtheRulesframedthereunderisessentialforsafeguarding
the interest of consumers of articles of food. Stringent laws will have no
meaningifoffenderscouldgetaway.(DayalSinghv.StateofRajasthan(2004)
5SCC721:(2004CriLJ2100)).Nochancescanbetakenbysocietywitha
manwhoseantisocialactivities,intheguiseofarespectabletrader,jeopardise
thehealthandwellbeingofnumerousinnocentconsumers.Theadulteratorisa
socialrisk.Itmightbedangeroustoleavehimfreetocarryonhisnefarious
activities.Adulterationisaneconomicoffencepromptedbyprofitmotiveandis
notlikelytoenditselfeasilytotherapeutictreatment.(PremBallabv.State
(DelhiAdmn.)(1977)1SCC173:(AIR1977SC56)).
17.

Inoffencesrelatingtofoodarticles,strictliabilityistherule.Nothing

morethanactusreusisneededwhereregulationofprivateactivityinvulnerable
areas like public health is intended. Social defence reasonably overpowers
individualfreedom.Section7ofthePreventionofFoodAdulterationActcasts
an absolute obligation regardless of scienter, bad faith and mens rea. Food
offencesshouldbedeterrentlydealtwith.Whenprimarynecessitiesoflifeare
soldwithspuriousadmixturesformakingprofittheonlyprotectionwhicha

Page 15 of 26

R/CR.MA/1821/2002

CAV JUDGMENT

commonman,whootherwiseisatthemercyoftheviciousdealer,hasisunder
thePreventionofFoodAdulterationActandtheCourt.Ifoffenderscouldget
away,thelawwouldbebroughtintocontempt(KrishanGopalSharmav.Govt.
ofN.C.T.ofDelhi(1996)4SCC513)).
18.

InMurlidharMeghrajLoyav.StateofMaharashtra(1976)3SCC684:

(1976CriLJ1527),theSupremeCourtheldthus(para5ofCriLJ):
"........Itistritethatthesocialmissionoffoodlawsshouldinformthe
interpretativeprocesssothatthelegalblowmayfalloneveryadulterator.
Anynarrowandpedantic,literalandlexicalconstructionlikelytoleave
loopholesforthisdangerouscriminaltribetosneakoutofthemeshesof
thelawshouldbediscouraged.Forthenewcriminaljurisprudencemust
depart from the old canons, which make indulgent presumptions and
favouredconstructionsbenefitingaccusedpersonsanddefeatingcriminal
statutescalculatedtoprotectthepublichealthandthenation'swealth....
......"(Emphasissupplied)
19.

InPyaraliK.Tejaniv.MahadeoRamchandraDange(1974CriLJ313)

theSupremeCourtheldthus(para11ofCriLJ):
"...........Itistritelawthatinfoodoffencesstrictliabilityistherule
notmerelyundertheIndianActbutalltheworldover.Theprinciplehas
beenexplainedinAmericanJurisprudence2dVol.35,p.864)thus
"Intentaselementofoffence:
Thedistributionofimpureoradulteratedfoodforconsumptionisanact
periloustohumanlifeandhealth,hence,adangerousact,andcannotbe
madeinnocent and harmless bythewantofknowledgeorbythegood
faithoftheseller;itistheactitself,nottheintent,thatdeterminesthe
guilt,andtheactualharmtothepublicisthesameinonecaseasinthe
other.Thus,theselleroffoodisunderthedutyofascertainingathisperil
whetherthearticleoffoodconformstothestandardfixedbythestatuteor
ordinance,unlesssuchstatutesorordinances,expresslyorbyimplication,
makeintentanelementoftheoffence."
Nothingmorethantheactusreusisneededwhereregulationofprivate
activityinvulnerableareaslikepublichealthisintended.Inthewordsof
LordWrightinMcLeodv.Buchanan(1940)2AllER179)"intentionto
commit a breach of statute need not be shown. The breach in fact is
enough." Social defence reasonably overpowers individual freedom to

Page 16 of 26

R/CR.MA/1821/2002

CAV JUDGMENT

injure,inspecialsituationsofstrictliability.Section7castsanabsolute
obligationregardlessofscienter,badfaithandmensrea.Ifyouhavesold
any article of food contrary to any of the subsections of S.7, you are
guilty.Thereisnomoreargumentaboutit.Thelawdeniestherightofa
dealer to rob the health of a supari consumer. . . . . ." (Emphasis
supplied).

20.

UnderSection13(2)oftheP.F.A.Act,theaccusedisfurnishedacopyof

the report of the public analyst and is given an opportunity to make an

applicationtohavethesampleanalyzedbytheCentralLaboratory.
21.

Once such an option is exercised and the sample is analyzed by the

CentralLaboratory,thereportoftheCentralLaboratorysupersedestheearlier
reportofthepublicanalyst.IftheCentralLaboratoryfindsthesampletobein
accordancewiththestandards,andnotdeteriorated,noreliancecantherefore
be placed by the prosecution on the earlier report of the public analyst to
contendthattheaccusedisguiltyofadulteration.
22.

Inthepresentcase,itisnotthecaseoftheaccusedthattheyhadnot

chosentoexercisetheoptionunderSection13(2)oftheP.F.A.Acttohavethe
samplesentforanalysistotheCentralLaboratoryonaccountofgrossdelay,as
thesamewouldhavebeennothingbutanexerciseinfutility.Onthecontrary,
thecaseoftheaccusedisthattheyhadexercisedtheirrightunderSection13(2)
of the P.F.A.Actandhad made anapplicationto have the samplesentfor
analysistotheCentralLaboratoryandtheCentralLaboratoryhasalsocertified
thesampletobeadulterated.However,thereportoftheCentralLaboratory
shouldbeignored,asthesamplecouldnotbesaidtohavebeenfitforanalysis
onaccountofgrossdelayinforwardingthesame.
Iamnotimpressedbythisprincipalargumentcanvassedonbehalfofthe
accused.
23.

Incaseswherethedelayonthepartoftheprosecutionhadresultedin

Page 17 of 26

R/CR.MA/1821/2002

CAV JUDGMENT

thesample,sentforanalysistotheCentralFoodLaboratory,beingrendered
unfit for analysis, it would undoubtedly cause prejudice to the accused and
wouldamounttodenialofhisvaluablerightunderSection13(2)oftheAct.
Therecouldalsobeothercaseswherethedelayonthepartoftheprosecution
couldbefoundtohavecausedprejudice.Whetherornotdelayinfurnishingof
thecopyofthereportofthepublicanalysthascausedprejudicetotheaccused
arematters,whichcanonlybedecided,onthebasisoftheevidence,bythetrial
Court,andnotbythisCourt,inexerciseofitsinherentpowersunderSection
482oftheCodeorwritjurisdictionunderArticle226oftheConstitution.
24.

Inthepresentcase,theCentralFoodLaboratoryfoundthesamplefitfor

analysisandaftercertifyingthesample fitforanalysis,itfoundthesample
adulterated.OncethereisacertificateoftheCentralFoodLaboratorycertifying
thatthesamplewasfitforanalysisthentheburdenwouldshiftontheaccused
toestablishbyleadingcogentevidencethatthesamplehadbecomeunfitand
thereportoftheCentralFoodLaboratorywouldhaveno evidentiaryvalue.
Whetherasamplehas,onexpiryofits,"BestBeforedateoritsshelflife,become
unfitforanalysisonaccountofitsbeingdecomposed,isamatterofevidence
and not a matter of inference in the proceedings under Section 482 of the
Cr.P.C.Itisonlywhenasampleissentforanalysis,cantheCentralLaboratory
on examination certify whether or not the sample has been decomposed
renderingitunfitforanalysis.
25.

InCharanjiLalv.StateofPunjab(1984)1SCC329:(1984CriLJ15),

theSupremeCourtheldthus:(Para15ofCriLJ)
"...........Decomposition is not something which always takes place
suddenlyorimmediately.Itisaprocesswhichinsomecasesmaybeslow
andinsomecasesquick.Decompositioncannotbenoticedorascertained
bytheCourtwhenitinspectsthepartofthesampleundersubsection(2
B)ofSection13toascertainwhetherthemarkandsealorfasteningare
intactand thesignatureorthumbimpression, asthecasemaybe,not
tampered with, before despatching that part to the Central Food
Laboratory. Even with the mark and seal intact, and the signature or
thumb impression, as the casemay be, not tampered with, the sample

Page 18 of 26

R/CR.MA/1821/2002

CAV JUDGMENT

might have already decomposed or decomposing might have already

commenced. Whether a sample has decomposed or not can only be
ascertained when the sealed container is opened in the Central Food
Laboratoryforthepurposeofanalysis..............(Emphasissupplied)"
26.

InT.V.Usmanv.FoodInspector,TellicherryMunicipalityAIR1994SC

1818samplesofsixpacketsofpansupariweresentforanalysistothePublic
Analyst,whoopinedthatthesamplecontainedSacharin,anartificialsweetener,
andwasthusadulterated.Boththevendorandthemanufacturerwereacquitted
bytheMagistrate,onthegroundthatRule7(3)wasviolatedinasmuchasthe
Local(Health)AuthorityhadreceivedtheFormIIIreportbeyond45days.The
learnedMagistratealsoheldthatRule9(a)wasnotproperlycompliedwith.On
appeal the Kerala High Court, while confirming the acquittal of the
manufacturer,convictedthevendor.TheKeralaHighCourtheldthatRule7(3)
wasnotmandatoryandnoncompliancethereofneededtobeconsideredonlyif
prejudice was established. Following the judgment of the Supreme Court in
Tulsiram(1984CriLJ1731),theKeralaHighCourtheldthatRule9(a)wasalso
notmandatory,butwasdirectory.Onappeal,theSupremeCourtheldthus:(At
Pp.182122,para14ofAIR)
"InRule7(3)nodoubttheexpression"shall"isusedbutitmustbeborne
inmindthattheRuledealswithstagespriortolaunchingtheprosecution
anditisalsoclearthatbythedateofreceiptofthereportofthePublic
AnalystthecaseisnotyetinstitutedintheCourtanditisonlyonthe
basisofthisreportofthePublicAnalystthattheconcernedauthorityhas
totakeadecisionwhether toinstituteaprosecutionornot.Thereisno
timelimitprescribedwithinwhichtheprosecutionhastobeinstitutedand
whenthereisnosuchlimitprescribedthenthereisnovalidreasonfor
holdingtheperiodof45daysasmandatory.Ofcoursethatdoesnotmean
that the Public Analyst can ignore the time limit prescribed under the
Rules.Hemustinallcasestrytocomplywiththetimelimit.Butifthereis
somedelay,inagivencase,thereisnoreasontoholdthattheveryreport
is void and on that basis to hold that even prosecution cannot be
launched.Maybe,inagivencase,ifthereisinordinatedelay,theCourt
maynotattachanyvaluetothereportbutmerelybecausethetimelimit
isprescribed,itcannotbesaidthatevenaslightdelaywouldrenderthe
reportvoidorinadmissibleinlaw.Inthiscontextitmustbenotedthat
Rule7(3)isonlyaproceduralprovisionmeanttospeeduptheprocessof
investigationonthebasisofwhichtheprosecutionhastobelaunched.No
doubt,subsec.(2)ofS.13oftheActconfersvaluablerightontheaccused

Page 19 of 26

R/CR.MA/1821/2002

CAV JUDGMENT

underwhichprovisiontheaccusedcanmakeanapplicationtotheCourt
withinaperiodof10daysfromthereceiptofcopyofthereportofPublic
AnalysttogetthesamplesoffoodanalysedintheCentralFoodLaboratory
andincasethesampleisfoundbythesaidCentralFoodLaboratoryunfit
for analysis due to decomposition by passage of time or for any other
reasonattributabletothelapsesonthesideofprosecution,thatvaluable
rightwouldstanddenied.Thiswouldconstituteprejudicetotheaccused
entitlinghimtoacquittalbutmeredelayassuchwillnotpersebefatalto
theprosecutioncaseevenincaseswherethesamplecontinuestoremainfit
for analysis in spite of the delay because the accused is in no way
prejudicedonthemeritsofthecaseinrespectofsuchdelay.Thereforeit
mustbeshownthatthedelayhasledtothedenialofrightconferredunder
Section13(2)andthatdependsonthefactsofeachcaseandviolationof
thetimelimitgiveninsubrule(3)ofRule7byitselfcannotbeaground
fortheprosecutioncasebeingthrownout(Emphasissupplied)."

27.

I may quote with profit a very exhaustive decision rendered by the

learnedSingleJudgeoftheAndhraPradeshHighCourtonthesubjectinthe
caseofM/sHyderabadBeveragesPrivateLimitedetc.Vs.StateofA.P.2006
CriminalLawJournal3988.
70. In Ajit Prasad Ramakishan Singh (1972 Cri LJ 1026), the
Supreme Court, following its earlier judgment in Sukhmal Gupta, held
thatitwaswrongforCourtstodecide,withoutanydata,thatthesample
would decompose and become incapable ofanalysis and that no useful
purposewouldbeservedinsendingthesampleforanalysistotheDirector,
whentherewasnoevidencethatthesamplehadsodeterioratedatthe
timeofserviceofsummonsastobeincapableofbeinganalysed.Inthe
absenceofevidence,thatthesamplehassodeterioratedastobeincapable
ofanalysis,suchapresumptionwouldnotbejustified.
71.
Anenquiry,astowhetherthesamplehasdecomposed,whetherit
is fit or unfit for analysis etc., is a statutory function required to be
discharged by the Central Food laboratory and not for this Court, in
proceedingsunderSection482,Cr.P.C.topresumethateverycaseofdelay
infurnishingacopyofthePublicAnalyst'sreport,beyondtheshelflifeof
theproduct, wouldeitherresultinthesamplebecoming decomposedor
causeprejudicetotheaccused.
72.
AsheldbytheApexCourtinAjitPrasadRamkishanSingh(1972
CriLJ1026),SukhmalGupta,CharanjiLal(1984CriLJ15)andT.V.
Usman and this Court inG. S. Prasad (2003 Cri LJ (NOC) 231) and
GangaiahnaiduRamaKrishnaunlessitisshownthatthesamplehasbeen

Page 20 of 26

R/CR.MA/1821/2002

CAV JUDGMENT

renderedunfitforanalysisandthereasonsthereforareonaccountofthe
delayinsendingthesampleforanalysisandtherebyprejudicehasbeen
causedtotheaccusedentitlingthemtoacquittal,meredelayinfurnishing
thereportofthepublicanalysttotheaccusedwouldnot,byitself,befatal
tothecaseoftheprosecution.
73.
AsheldinT.V.Usman(AIR1994SC1818),thereisnotimelimit
prescribed for launching prosecution. It is relevant to note that a time
limit isprescribed, under Section 9AoftheP.F.A. Act, forsending the
secondsampleforanalysistothePublicAnalyst,atimelimitof10days
wasprescribedunderRule9(j),priortoitsomissionwitheffectfrom41
1977, forsupplying acopyofthereportofthepublicanalyst,Rule22
provides that the quantity of food to be sent for analysis must be as
prescribed in the table to the rule and Rule 7(3) requires the Public
Analysttosubmithisreportwithin45days.Allthesestatutoryprovisions
were held in Tulsiram (1984 Cri LJ 1731), Dalchand v. Municipal
Corporation, Bhopal AIR 1983 SC 303 : (1983 Cri LJ 448), State of
Keralav.AlasseryMohammed,(1978)2SCC386:(1978CriLJ925)
and T. V. Usman (AIR 1974 SC 1818), to be directory and not
mandatory.WhennotimelimitisprescribedundertheActforlaunching
prosecutionandcertainstatutoryprovisionsandrules,whereintimelimit
isprescribed,wereheldtobedirectoryandnotmandatory,itcannotbe
said that mere delay in furnishing a copy of the report of the public
analysttotheaccused,byitselfandwithoutanythingmore,isfataltothe
prosecution.
74.
OnwhatbasiscanCourtspresumethatexpiryofthe"bestbefore"
dateorexpiryoftheshelflifeoftheproductwould,byitself,andwithout
anythingmore,resultinrenderingthesampleunfitforanalysis?Theshelf
lifeofproductsvaryfromonetotheother.Whileincertaincasestheshelf
lifemaybeassmallasoneweek,incertainotherstheshelflifecouldbeas
longasafewyears.Similarly,thedelayinmakingavailableacopyofthe
reportofthepublicanalystmayalsovary.Thedelaycouldrangefroma
periodofafewdays,aftertheexpiryoftheshelflifeorthe"BestBefore"
date,toevenafewyears.Canthesameyardstickbeappliedinallcasesto
hold that the delay in making available a copy of the public analyst
report, beyond theshelflifeoftheproduct, hascaused prejudicetothe
accusedanddeniedhimhisvaluablerightunderSection13(2)?Evenin
caseswherethereportofthepublicanalystismadeavailablewithintime,
theaccusedmaynotexercisehisrighttohavethesamplesentforanalysis
totheCentralLaboratory.Insuchcases,thereportofthepublicanalystis
required to be accepted. Can a different yardstick be applied to cases,
wheredespiteacopyofthereportofthepublicanalystbeingfurnished
immediatelyaftertheshelflifeoftheproducthasexpiredandtheaccused
does not exercise his right to have the sample sent for analysis to the
CentralLaboratory,toholdthatdelaybyitselfhascausedprejudicetothe
accused?Answers,thereto,havenecessarilytobeinthenegative.

Page 21 of 26

R/CR.MA/1821/2002

CAV JUDGMENT

75.
Negligence of officials in discharging their functions, and in not
promptly furnishing a copy of the report of the public analyst to the
accused, must not result in offenders involved in adulteration of the
food/seedbeingpermittedtogoscotfree,unlessprejudiceisestablished.
Legitimateprosecutionshouldnotbescuttledonmeretechnicalities,inthe
absenceofanyproofofprejudicetotheaccused.
76.

InDalchand(1983CriLJ448),theSupremeCourtheldthus:
".......Itiswelltoremember thatquite often many rules, though
couchedinlanguagewhichappearstobeimperative,arenomore
than mere instructions to those entrusted with the task of
discharging statutory duties for public benefit.The negligence of
those to whom public duties are entrusted cannot by statutory
interpretation be allowed to promote public mischief and cause
public inconvenience and defeat the main object of the
statute........."(Emphasissupplied)

77.
Since the eventual test is one of prejudice, which is to be
established, on the facts and circumstances of each case, by way of
evidenceadducedbeforethelearnedMagistrate,itisnotforthisCourt,
underSection482,Cr.P.C.toinferorpresumethatevenincaseofdelay,
sayofafewdays,beyondtheshelflifeoftheproduct,andintheabsence
ofreasonableexplanationforthedelayinfurnishingacopyofthereport
of the Public Analyst, the accused is prejudiced and his right, under
Section 13(2) of the P.F.A. Act and Section 16(2) of the Seeds Act, is
violated.
78. Inexercise ofitsjurisdiction under Section 482, Cr.P.C. this Court
doesnottakeuponitselfthetaskofexaminingtheevidenceortorecord
anindependentfindingthatthedelayinfurnishingacopyofthepublic
analyst'sreporthasresultedinprejudicetotheaccused.Whetherthedelay
isinsignificantorinordinate,whetherthedelayisattributabletolapsesof
theprosecutioninmakingavailableacopyofthepublicanalyst'sreport,
whetheronaccountofthedelayinmakingthereportavailable,theright
oftheaccusedunderSection13(2)oftheP.F.A.ActorSection16(2)of
theSeedsActhasbeenrenderedillusoryasthesamplesenttotheCentral
Laboratoryisfoundunfitforanalysisduetodecompositionbypassageof
time or for any other reason attributed to lapses on the part of the
prosecution,whetherinordinatedelayinsendingthesampleforanalysis
has,bypassageoftime,renderedthesample"adulterated"areallmatters
tobeexaminedbythelearnedMagistrate,inthefactsandcircumstances
ofeachcase,onthebasisoftheevidence adduced. Delay, byitselfand
without anything more, cannot form the basis for the High Court, in

Page 22 of 26

R/CR.MA/1821/2002

CAV JUDGMENT

exerciseofitsjurisdictionunderSection482,Cr.P.C.toquashthecriminal
proceedings."
28.

The learned Single Judge in para 103 of the report summed up as

under:
103. 1. Since the object and purpose of the PFA Act is to eliminate
dangertohumanlifeandhealthfromthesaleofunwholesomearticlesof
food, strictadherence tothePFA Actand therules made thereunder is
essential.Inoffencesrelatingtofoodarticles,strictliabilityistherule.
2.
Thereportofthepublicanalyst,underSection13(1)ofthePFA
ActandSection16(1)oftheSeedsAct,formsthebasisforinstitutionof
prosecution for adulteration offences. This report, primafacie, indicates
thattheaccusedhavesoldadulteratedfood/seed.
3.
The option given for analysis to the Central Laboratory, is to
enablethemtoascertainthecorrectnessorotherwiseofthefindingsofthe
publicanalyst.Thisvaluableright,underSection13(2)ofthePFAActand
Section16(2)ofSeedsAct,ifdenied,wouldcauseprejudicetotheaccused.
4.
Denialoftherightoftheaccused,underSection13(2)ofthePFA
ActandSection16(2)oftheSeedsAct,wouldariseonlywhentheaccused
have applied to the Court to have the sample sent for analysis to the
Central Laboratory. Failure to exercise this option or to make an
applicationtotheCourt,requestingthatthesamplebesentforanalysisto
theCentralLaboratory,woulddisentitletheaccusedfromcontendingthat
theyhavebeendeniedtheirrightunderSection13(2)ofthePFAActand
Section16(2)oftheSeedsAct.(BabulalHargovindas(1971CriLJ1075),
Sukhmal Gupta, Jagdish Prasad, (1972 Cri LJ 1309), Ajit Prasad
RamkishanSingh(1972 CriLJ1026), Prabhu(1994 AIRSCW2649),
Tulsiram(1984CriLJ1731),G.S.Prasad(2003CriLJNOC231),and
GangaiahnaiduRamaKrishna.
5.
"BestBeforedate",underRule32ofthePFARules,merelyrequires
themanufacturertoindicatetheperiodduringwhichtheproductwould
remainfullymarketableandretainitsspecificqualities.ExplanationVIII
(i)thereunderprovidesthatbeyondthe"BestBeforedate",thefoodmay
stillbeperfectlysatisfactory.
6.
Expiry of the "Best Before" date or the shelf life of the product
would only enable a manufacturer to disclaim liability regarding the
marketabilityandthespecificqualitiesoftheproduct.Expiryoftheshelf

Page 23 of 26

R/CR.MA/1821/2002

CAV JUDGMENT

lifewouldnotautomaticallyrenderthesampleunfitforanalysis.
7.
The "Best Before" date would vary from one article to another.
Similarly the extent of delay in furnishing a copy of the report of the
publicanalysttotheaccusedwouldvaryfromonecasetoanother.
8.
Rule4(5)ofthePreventionofFoodAdulterationRules,readwith
FormIIofAppendixAthereof,requirestheCentralLaboratorytocertify
astowhetherthesamplesenttoitforanalysisisfitforanalysisornot
andincaseitisfoundunfitforanalysistocertifythereasonstherefor.
9.
The PFAActand theRules madethereunder castadutyonthe
CentralLaboratorytocertifywhetherornotthesampleisfitforanalysis.
10.
Whetherthesampleisfitforanalysisorhasdecomposedtosuchan
extentastorenderitincapableofanalysisareallmatterstobeexamined
bytheCentralLaboratory.
11.
ItisonlyiftheCentralLaboratorycertifiesthatthesampleisunfit
for analysis and this has resulted due to the delay on the part of the
prosecution tofurnishacopyofthereportofthepublicanalysttothe
accused,cantheaccusedbesaidtohavesufferedprejudice.(AjitPrasad
Ramkishan Singh (1972 Cri LJ 1026), Sukhmal Gupta, Charanji Lal
(1984CriLJ15),T.V.Usman(AIR1994SC1818),G.S.Prasad(2003
CriLJNOC231)andGangaiahnaiduRamakrishna).
12.
If the sample has not been sent for analysis to the Central
LaboratoryandtheCentralLaboratoryhasnotcertifiedthatthesample
hasdecomposed,renderingitunfitforanalysis,meredelayinfurnishing
thereportofthepublicanalysttotheaccusedcannot,byitself,besaidto
havecausedprejudicetotheaccused.
13.
Power under Section 482, Cr. P.C. istobeexercised sparingly,
withcircumspection,andintherarestofrarecases.Thispowerisnotto
be used to stifle legitimate prosecution. Inherent powers under Section
482,Cr.P.C.donotconferarbitraryjurisdictionontheHighCourttoact
accordingtowhimorcaprice.
14.
InproceedingsunderSection482,Cr.P.C.theHighCourtdoesnot
takeuponitselfthetaskofappreciatingtheevidenceonrecordortorecord
anindependentfindingthatthedelayinfurnishingacopyofthereportof
thepublicanalysthasresultedinprejudicetotheaccused.
15.
Whether delay, in furnishing a copy of the report of the public
analyst, has resulted in prejudice to the accused and whether the
prosecutionhasfurnishedasatisfactoryexplanationforthedelay,areall

Page 24 of 26

R/CR.MA/1821/2002

CAV JUDGMENT

mattersofevidence, tobeexamined bythetrialCourtandnotforthis

CourttoinferinproceedingsunderSection482,Cr.P.C.
16.
Section24(3)and(4)oftheInsecticidesActisinparimateriawith
theprovisionsofSection15(3)and(4)oftheDrugsandCosmeticsAct.
UnderSection24(3)oftheInsecticidesActandSection25(3)oftheDrugs
andCosmeticsAct,onreceiptofthereportofthepublicanalysttheperson
fromwhomthesamplehasbeentaken,oranyotherpersonconcerned,is
required,within28daysofreceiptofacopyofthereport,tonotifyin
writing,theInspectorortheCourt,ofhisintentiontoadduceevidencein
contraversionofthereport.
17.
InNationalOrganicsChemicalIndustriesLimited,UniqueFarmaid
(P) Ltd. (2000 Cri LJ 2692), and Gupta Chemicals, the accused had,
under Section 24(3) of the Insecticides Act, notified their intention of
adducingevidenceincontraversionofthereportofthepublicanalyst.
18.
InBrijlalMittal(1998CriLJ3287)theSupremeCourtheldthat,
in cases where the accused has not intimated his intention to adduce
evidenceincontraversionofthereportofthepublicanalystthedelay,in
filingthecomplaintaftertheexpiryoftheshelflifeoftheproduct,could
notbemadeagroundtoquashtheprosecution.
19.
Incases where theaccused have not even requested ormade an
applicationtotheCourttohavethesamplesentforanalysistotheCentral
Laboratory,delayinfurnishingacopyofthereportofthepublicanalyst,
beyondtheshelflifeoftheproduct,cannotbemadeagroundtoquashthe
prosecution.
20.
There is no provision similar to Section 24(3) and (4) of the
InsecticidesAct,eitherunderthePreventionofFoodAdulterationActor
the Seeds Act, requiring the accused to notify his intention to adduce
evidenceincontraversionofthereportofthepublicanalyst.
21.
Wheretwostatutesarenotinparimateria,thedecisionrendered
onaprovisioninoneenactmentwouldnotconstituteabindingprecedent
tointerpretaprovisioninanotherenactment.(BabuKhan(AIR2001SC
1740)andN.R.Vairamani(AIR2004SC4778)."

29.

IaminrespectfulagreementwiththeviewtakenbythelearnedSingle

JudgeoftheAndhraPradeshHighCourtandIproposetofollowthesame.The
learnedSingleJudgealsoconsideredtheprovisionsoftheInsecticidesActas
alsorelieduponinthepresentcasebyMr.Raju,thelearnedadvocateappearing
fortheaccused,whereithasbeenheldthattheprovisionsoftheP.F.A.andthe

Page 25 of 26

R/CR.MA/1821/2002

CAV JUDGMENT

SeedsActarenotinparimateriawiththeprovisionsoftheInsecticidesAct.
30.

The reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of

Girishbhai(supra)isalsoofnoavailtotheaccused.Thedecisionwasrendered
inthefactsofthatcase.Themostimportantdistinguishingfeatureofthatcase
isthatsincethereporthadbeenservedontheappellantonlyon17 thJuly,1989
bywhichtimethesampleofcurdhaddeteriorated. TheCourttooktheview
thatanyfurtherexaminationofsuchsamplehadbecomemeaningless,thereby
deprivingofthevaluablerightconferreduponhimbySection13(2)oftheAct.
31.

Asnotedabove,inthepresentcasetherighthadbeenexercisedandthe

Central Food Laboratory found the sample to be fit for analysis and only
thereafter the Central Food Laboratory certified that the sample was
adulterated.
32.

ItappearsthattheapplicantsoftheCriminalMisc.ApplicationNo.1822

of 2002 had filed an application for discharge in the Court of the learned
Magistrate,videapplicationExh.67.Thedischargeapplicationwasorderedto
berejectedvideorderdated21.4.2001. Beingdissatisfied,theapplicantshad
challenged the order before the Sessions Court, by filing Criminal Revision
ApplicationNo.56/01.Therevisionapplicationwasalsoorderedtoberejected
videorderdated28.1.2002. SuchorderpassedbytheRevisionalCourtwas
never challenged before this Court. However, straight way the present
applicationwasfiled,prayingforquashingofthecriminalproceedings.
33.

Intheresult,boththesepetitionsfailandareorderedtoberejected.

Rule stands discharged. Adinterim relief granted earlier stands vacated

forthwith.
(J.B.PARDIWALA,J.)

Mohandas

Page 26 of 26