Kumaravel and Others vs State

Karpagavinayagam, J.—This appeal is directed against the judgment in S.T.C. No. 43 of 1987 on the file of the Special District and

Sessions Judge for E.C. Act Offences, Madurai, convicting the Appellants for the offences under Clause 3 of Tamil Nadu Scheduled Articles

(Prescription of Standard) Order 1977 read with Sections 3 and 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act read with Sections 34 and 109 of

the Indian Penal Code, and sentencing them to undergo R.I. for two years, and imposing a fine of Rs. 2,000/- on A-1 and Rs. 500/- on A-2 to A-

5, in default to undergo R.I. for one month.

Short facts leading to the conviction could be summarised as follows: On behalf of the prosecution, P.W.1 to P.W.5 were examined and

Exhibits P.1 to P-7 were marked and M.Os. 1 and 2 were marked. P.Ws. 1 and 2 who were the mahazar witnesses turned hostile.

The first Appellant is the owner of the rice mill. Appellants 2 to 5 were the employees in the rice mill. On 22.8.1987 at about 6 P.M., P.W.5,

Durairaj, The Inspector of Police, Civil Supplies C.I.D., Nagercoil, came to the rice mill of the Appellant and inspected. At that time, Appellants 1

to 5 were engaged in selling the rice at a higher price. Samples were taken and then through Court they were sent to the Analyst-P.W.4. After

analysis, P.W.4, the Chemical Examiner sent a report Exhibit P-3 stating that the rice was found to be adulterated. On this basis a charge sheet

was filed by P.W.5 for the offences mentioned above against the accused.

After the evidence of the prosecution is over, when the accused were questioned u/s 313(1) of Criminal Procedure Code, they pleaded innocence.

After termination of trial, the trial court found the Appellant guilty and convicted and sentenced them as referred earlier. Aggrieved over this, the

present appeal has been resorted.

Mr. R. Shanmugasundaram, learned Counsel for the Appellant contends that the lower Court has failed to consider the violations of the various

mandatory procedures contemplated under the relevant Rules of Tamil Nadu Scheduled Articles (Prescription of Standard) Order, 1977 and also

the mandatory Sections contained in the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

Heard Mr. Manimaran, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for the Respondent. The appeal has to be allowed on a short point. A

similar question which arose earlier in this Court, namely, is whether the relevant Sections of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act for taking

sample and sending it to the Analyst would be applicable to the prosecution case under the Tamil Nadu Scheduled Articles (Prescription of

Standard) Order, 1977. In a batch of cases reported in S. Arunachalam and Ors. v. State, rep. by the Inspector of Police, Tirunelveli 1993 L.W.

(Cri.) 211 held that in the cases of the Prosecutions for contravention of Clause 3 of the Tamil Nadu Scheduled Articles (Prescription of Standard)

Order, 1977, before the Special Courts, the Investigation Officer has to necessarily follow the mandatory Sections provided in the Prevention of

Food Adulteration Act. This decision is squarely applicable to this case. In this case, the sample was taken on 22.8.1987 and the sample was sent

to the Court on 24.8.1987 for Analyst through Court. The analysis report is dated 6.10.1987. The Chemical Examiner analysed the article and

sent his report Exhibit P-3 on 6.10.1987. After the receipt of the report, P.W.5 filed a charge sheet on 30.10.87. The facts as projected by the

prosecution through the witnesses P.Ws.3 to 5 would reveal that the mandatory provisions like Sections 11 and 13(2) of the Prevention in Food

Adulteration Act has not been followed. u/s 11, while taking sample the officer concerned must serve the notice in the form which is extracted

therein intimating the intention to take sample and after taking sample two samples must be sent to local authority and one sample should be sent to

the public analyst.

u/s 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, the officer who took sample, after the receipt of the analyst report and after filing the

complaint or report in the Court, shall give a notice u/s 13(2) to the accused along with the public analyst report giving the intimation in writing that

he could file an application before the Court requesting u/s 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, to send the second sample which

was deposited in local authority, for second analysis. These Sections provide for certain safeguards and rights to the accused.

Admittedly, the procedures enumerated in these Sections have not been followed in this case, which resulted in prejudice to the accused. A

reading of the above cited decision and the relevant provisions of the Tamil Nadu Scheduled Articles (Prescription of Standard) Order, 1977, and

the provisions of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, would make it clear, that the beneficial provision mandated in the Prevention of Food

Adulteration Act, will certainly apply to the present prosecution. The right conferred on the accused by these provisions is a valuable one, and so,

it cannot be easily allowed to be thwarted.

In the light of the above reasons, I am of the view that the verdict given by the Court below, convicting the Appellants is not correct and liable to

be set aside. Accordingly, the convictions and sentences imposed upon the Appellants are set aside, and the Appellants are acquitted of the

charges framed against them. The appeal is allowed. Fine, if paid is directed to be refunded.