Food Inspector, Anantapur vs G. Narasimha Murthy and another

Appellant is the State represented by the food Inspector, Anantapur. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 18-2-1999 in CC No.73 of 1993 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kadiri, wherein the accused are found not guilty for the offence u/s 16(1)(a)(ii) for the contravention of Sections 7(v) and 2(ia)(m) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and they are acquitted u/s 248(1) Cr.PC.

A perusal of the judgment of the trial Court shows that the entire evidence and material on record had been very carefully gone through and after considering the issue in detail, the trial Court has passed the impugned judgment acquitting the accused for the offence levelled against them.

The impugned judgment reveals that the matter ended in acquittal mainly on the ground that Rules 4(3) and 4(4) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules which are mandatory, are not followed by the Investigating Authority. I do not find any valid reason to interfere with the well considered judgment on facts and law passed by the trial Court. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed confirming the judgment of the trial Court.

Accordingly the appeal is dismissed at the admission stage.

Before parting with the case, I feel it necessary to make some observation.

The object of the Act is to he following effect:

"Adulteration of food articles is rampant in the country and has become a grave menace to the health and well being of the community. It makes an heavy dent in the already low nutritional standards and the benefits of many public health programes on which large sums of money are spent, are insidiously undermined. A major offensive against this is overdue. Keeping in view of the gravity of the problem and the growing danger which poses to health of the nation, it has become necessary to amend the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 so as to plug the loopholes and provide for more stringent and effective measures with a view to curb the menace."

A great deal of attempt is being made to dissuade, though not curbing totally the menace of food adulteration by the legislation viz., Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and Rules framed hereunder. Inspite of which, the public out-cry is that the menace is increasing and also spreading into various areas, despite the measures that are being taken by the State functionaries. Several cases are being booked after conducting raids. In order to avoid the scope of misuse by the functionaries, various safeguards also have been introduced in the Act and Rules in adopting the procedure. In the instant case, the categorical finding of the trial Court after taking into account the entire evidence is to the effect that Rules 4(3) and 4(4) were not followed by the authorities. It is observed by the trial Court in its judgment that:

"Rule 4(3) of the P.F.A. Act makes it mandatory that whenever the sample has been despatched for the Central Lab for analysis it shall consist a copy of the memorandum and a specimen impression of the seal used to seal and the container and the cover shall be sent separately by the Registered Post to the Director. Absolutely there is no proof that the copy of specimen impression seal used to seal sent to Central Food Laboratory wherein it is found in Ex.P36 there is no mention of the code number of sample sent for analysis and it is mentioned that copy of memo in Form No.1 not received alongwith the sample. Therefore, it can be said that there is no material available under Ex.P36 that the sample drawn by P1 was sent for analysis."

This is certainly not a case where this Court has to interpret the procedure adopted by the authorities one way or the other. The procedure to be adopted by the authorities prescribed under Rules 4(3) and 4(4) does not contain any ambiguity. The said procedure is actually required to be followed as observed earlier to prevent misuse of the powers by the authorities against genuine persons.

In my view, the non-compliance of the procedure under Rules 4(3) and 4(4) mainly forced the lower Court to acquit the accused. Such non-compliance of the procedure by the concerned authorities shall not give an impression to the public that only for the extraneous reasons, the procedure contemplated is either ignored totally or is being deviated. Such non-compliance of the procedure prescribed under the legislation would only help in diluting and defeating the very object of the legislation. The implementation of the Act shall be true, effective and inconsonance with the object intended and the raids shall not be for mere statistical purposes. The authorities and their actions under the Act are accountable more to the society rather than anything. Therefore, this Court records its dis-satisfaction about the way in which the case on hand was dealt with and I direct the concerned authorities to issue suitable instructions to strictly adhere to the procedure contemplated under the Act and Rules in order to achieve the intended object and make the legislation more effective and I believe that such effective implemention would certainly have the desired impact.