State of Madhya Pradesh vs Radheshyam

This acquittal appeal is preferred under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against judgment dated 09.05.2000 passed by

Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dongargarh in Criminal Case No. 510/1990, wherein the said court acquitted the respondents in contravention of

Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short “the Act, 1954â€) which is punishable under Section 16A(1) of the Act, 1954

for selling adulterated food article-sago (lkcwnkuk) on 24.06.1989 at about 2.00 p.m at village- Bortalav, District-Rajnandgaon (C.G.).

As per case of the prosecution, Food Inspector- R.S. Diwakar was posted at Rajnandgaon on 24.06.1989. He purchased 600 grams. of Sago from

respondent No. 1- Radheshyam and after examination of public analyst, said article was found to be adulterated. As per version of respondent No. 1-

Radheshyam, he purchased the said food article from respondent No. 1 with a warranty and since warranty was issued by respondent No. 2, he was

also charged for the said offence.

The first question for consideration of this Court is whether respondent No. 2 issued any warranty regarding article in question and whether he is

liable for contravention of Section 7 of the Act, 1954. Though, one warranty was produced before the Food Inspector, but the same was not tallied

from the shop of respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2 is working in name and style of firm Mishrilal Dharamchand Chopada Kirana Merchant,

Dongargarh and bill (Ex.P/7) is alleged to have been issued by him, but no one tallied the said bill from shop of respondent No. 2.

The only incriminating piece of evidence against respondent No. 2 is Ex.P/7, but the same was not tallied, therefore, connecting piece of evidence

against respondent No. 2 is lacking in the record of the trial court. It is also not established any bill issued by respondent No. 2 was related to the same

article which was seized from respondent No. 1. No one compared seized article from shop of respondent No. 2 that article of same quality was in

possession of respondent No. 2. In absence of incriminating circumstances, the trial court opined that criminal liability cannot be fastened on

respondent No. 2 on the basis of said bill (Ex. P/7) which was produced by respondent No. 1 and this Court after reassessing the evidence, has no

reason to substitute contrary finding.

In the present case, it is alleged by said Food Inspector that the seized article was sent for examination to public analyst and as per record, public

analyst issued its report on 04.08.1989, while the complaint was filed on 21.12.1990 i.e. about 16 months after receiving of report. From evidence of

Food Inspector - R.S. Diwakar (PW-1) (Para 10), it is clear that no acknowledgement is produced before the trial court to show that report of public

analyst was received by respondent No. 1. It is also not clear from his evidence that report is directly delivered to respondent No. 1 or it is delivered

through postal mode. No acknowledgement was produced before the trial court, therefore, it is not proved that the said report was forwarded to

respondent No. 1. Forwarding of report is condition precedent for applying the said article to be re-examined by Central Food Laboratory. Section 13

(2) of the Act, 1954 reads as under :-

“On receipt of the report of the result of the analysis under sub-section (1) to the effect that the article of food is adulterated, the Local (Health)

Authority shall, after the institution of prosecution against the persons from whom the sample of the article of food was taken and the person, if any,

whose name, address and other particulars have been disclosed under section 14A, forward, in such manner as may be prescribed, a copy of the

report of the result of the analysis to such person or persons, as the case may be, informing such person or persons that if it is so desired, either or

both of them may make an application to the court within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of the copy of the report to get the sample of

the article of food kept by the Local (Health) Authority analysed by the Central Food Laboratory.â€​

In the present case, when the report was not forwarded to respondent No. 1, he has been deprived of the right to reexamination by Central Food

Laboratory, therefore, the trial court opined that in absence of report of Central Food Laboratory and as respondent No. 1 has been deprived of filing

application for examination from laboratory, report of public analyst cannot be treated as final report and the charges leveled against respondent No. 1

is not established. After reassessing the evidence, this Court has no reason to disturb the finding recorded by the trial court.

Accordingly, the acquittal appeal is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.