Hindustan Lever Limited VsState of Tripura

Deepak Gupta, C.J.—This petition filed u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the prosecution launched against the petitioner and two others.

The allegation in the petitioner that the Food Inspector purchased 3 bottles of Pineapple Squash (Kissan Brand) on 11.06.2001 from the proprietor of M/S. Tirupati Enterprises, Smt. Dipali Banik and a receipt was issued by the seller Sri Sukumar Saha. The Food Inspector found that the bottles have been manufactured by the petitioner Hindustan Lever Limited and thereafter sent two notices in Form VI to the present petitioner i.e. the Managing Director & Manager of Hindustan Lever Limited informing them that a sample had been drawn of a bottle of squash manufactured by them.

According to the prosecution, one of the bottles of squash was sent to the Public Analyst, who found that the fruit juice contents were not in accordance with the prescribed standards and therefore, held that the pineapple fruit squash is adulterated under the provision of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. This report was issued on 11.07.2001 and was presumably received by the Food Inspector soon thereafter. This is apparent from the order dated 15.09.2001 whereby, the local health authority has granted sanction to prosecute the petitioners and the two other co-accused. The prosecution was in fact, launched on 25th January, 2002. The case was transferred by the learned CJM to the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, who directed that notices be issued to the accused for 7th May, 2002.

On behalf of the petitioners two contentions have been raised. Firstly, it is alleged that there is no compliance of Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and therefore, the prosecution cannot proceed further since a valuable right of the accused has been taken away. It is secondly contended that the squash was meant to be consumed within one year and the prosecution should have been launched well within one year and opportunity given to the manufacturer to send the remaining sample to the Central Food Laboratory and therefore also the petitioners have been prejudiced.

I have gone through the statement of the Food Inspector recorded by the learned Court on 30th August, 2005 and in this statement, there is not a whisper that copy of the report of the Public Analyst was sent to any of the accused. After going through the record of the trial Court, I find that the provision of Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act has not been complied with. Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act reads as follows:-

"13. (2) 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 u/s 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."

It is settled law that the provisions of sub-Section (2) of Section 13 are mandatory in nature and any breach of these provisions is fatal to the prosecution. Sub-Section (2) of Section 13 confers a very valuable right upon the accused. On intimation of the report of the Public Analyst that the sample of the food article had been declared to be adulterated the accused to whom notice has been given u/s 13(2) has a right to approach the Court for sending the sample to the Central Food Laboratory. In case, the report of the Central Food Laboratory is in favour of the accused then the prosecution fails. The petitioners have been denied this valuable right of having the sample sent for analysis to the Central Food Laboratories because no notice u/s 13(2) was issued. Therefore, I am not even going into the second question raised because when there is no notice u/s 13(2) there is obvious prejudice caused to the accused and the prosecution must fail. Reference in this regard may be made to the Judgment of the Apex Court in T.V. Usman Vs. Food Inspector, Tellicherry Municipality, Tellicherry,

In this view of the matter, the petition is allowed and the proceedings under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act are quashed in respect of all the accused.