Rule 14 is mandatory and if it is proved that mandate of this rule is not complied with, accused is
entitled to acquittal - Not only the container in which the sample of food articles are taken, intermediary vessels, spoon etc. where food articles are handled for mixing, stirring or otherwise for the purpose of sampling also shall be clean and dry.
The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was enacted to curb and remedy the widespread evil of food adulteration and to ensure the availability of wholesome food to the people. It is well settled that the language of such a statute should be construed in a manner which would suppress the mischief, advance the remedy, promote the object of the statute, prevent its subtle, evasion and foil its artful circumvention. Dealing with an article of food which is adulterated is punishable under Section 16(i)(a) of the Act. Apex Court has deprecated a narrow and pedantic construction of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 likely to leave the loopholes for the adulterant to escape. (See: Murlidhar v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1976 SC 1929 at Page 1934 and Kisan v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1977 SC 435). It is true that in criminal jurisprudence, there is presumption in favour of the innocence of the accused and it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the charges. But when prosecution has proved that sampling was done in accordance with law, it is for the accused to point out regarding the alleged defects in the case and the court has to decide the matter on the totality of evidence. Where there are two presumptions; and both are equally balanced, court must prefer that which is best according to facts and evidence on record. In this case there was not even a suggestion during trial that the intermediary vessel and spoon used for stirring the sample was not dry and clean. In Section 313statement also there is no such case for the accused. DW. 1 also did not state so. PW. 1, Food Inspector, has stated that he has taken the sample in accordance with law. In the absence of cross examination on this point and the evidence to the contrary, the official presumption regarding the regularity of official act can be drawn on the facts and the circumstances of this case. We see no ground to disturb the findings made by the court below in a revision petition.
Print Page
entitled to acquittal - Not only the container in which the sample of food articles are taken, intermediary vessels, spoon etc. where food articles are handled for mixing, stirring or otherwise for the purpose of sampling also shall be clean and dry.
The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was enacted to curb and remedy the widespread evil of food adulteration and to ensure the availability of wholesome food to the people. It is well settled that the language of such a statute should be construed in a manner which would suppress the mischief, advance the remedy, promote the object of the statute, prevent its subtle, evasion and foil its artful circumvention. Dealing with an article of food which is adulterated is punishable under Section 16(i)(a) of the Act. Apex Court has deprecated a narrow and pedantic construction of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 likely to leave the loopholes for the adulterant to escape. (See: Murlidhar v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1976 SC 1929 at Page 1934 and Kisan v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1977 SC 435). It is true that in criminal jurisprudence, there is presumption in favour of the innocence of the accused and it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the charges. But when prosecution has proved that sampling was done in accordance with law, it is for the accused to point out regarding the alleged defects in the case and the court has to decide the matter on the totality of evidence. Where there are two presumptions; and both are equally balanced, court must prefer that which is best according to facts and evidence on record. In this case there was not even a suggestion during trial that the intermediary vessel and spoon used for stirring the sample was not dry and clean. In Section 313statement also there is no such case for the accused. DW. 1 also did not state so. PW. 1, Food Inspector, has stated that he has taken the sample in accordance with law. In the absence of cross examination on this point and the evidence to the contrary, the official presumption regarding the regularity of official act can be drawn on the facts and the circumstances of this case. We see no ground to disturb the findings made by the court below in a revision petition.
Kerala High Court
Babu vs Food Inspector on 3 March, 2003
Equivalent citations: 2003 CriLJ 3812, 2003 (2) KLT 90
Bench: J Koshy, A Lekshmikutty
