State of Maharashtra vs Usha Vinayak Bal (Mrs.) and Another

A.P. Tated, J.—The State preferred this appeal against the order of acquittal of the respondent-accused punishable u/s 7(i) & (v) read with section 2(i-a), (m) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, read with section 16(1)(a), (i) of the said Act, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dapoli, on 16th February, 1984 in Regular Criminal Case No. 71 of 1982.

The respondents-accused were prosecuted for having sold adulterated milk on 4th February, 1982. The learned Judicial Magistrate found that the complainant Food Inspector did not comply with the provision of Rule 9(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules 1955, in not sending a copy of the report of the public analyst to the accused after launching the prosecution. The said Rule (9)(a), as it stood before the amendment effected in 1982, required that a copy of the report of the public analyst should be sent to the accused immediately after launching the prosecution. This is necessary to afford the accused a valuable defence u/s 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, whereby he can get the sample examined by the Central Food Laboratory. The learned Public Prosecutor is not able to show us that the requirement of Rule 9(a) was complied with by the complainant food inspector. As that requirement was not complied with, the accused lost the valuable right to get the sample examined by the Central Food Laboratory and as such the accused could not be convicted by the learned Judicial Magistrate. In this view of the matter, we find that there is no infirmity in the judgment and order of the learned Judicial Magistrate.

Hence the appeal is dismissed and the acquittal of the respondents-accused is maintained.