Whether the court can rely on report of public analyst if he is not examined?

Whatever that may be, we are concerned in this case not with the report of a Chemical Examiner but with that of a Public Analyst. In so far as the report of the Public Analyst is concerned we have the provisions of section 13 of the Act. Sub-section (5) of that Section provides as follows :

"Any document purporting to be a report signed by a public analyst, unless it has been superseded under sub-section (3), or any document purporting to be a certificate signed by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory, may be used as evidence of the facts stated therein in any proceeding under this Act or under sections 272 to 276 of the Indian Penal Code :

Provided that any document purporting to be a certificate signed by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory shall be final and conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein."

12. This provision clearly makes the report admissible in evidence.

What value is to be attached to such report must necessarily be for the Court of fact which has to consider it.

Sub-section (2) of section 13 gives an opportunity to the accused vendor or the complainant on payment of the prescribed fee to make an application to the court for sending a sample of the allegedly adulterated commodity taken under section 11 of the Act to the Director of Central Food Laboratory for a certificate. The certificate issued by the Director would then supersede the report given by the Public Analyst. This certificate is not only made admissible in evidence under sub-section (5) but is given finality of the facts contained therein by the proviso to that sub-section.

It is true that the Certificate of the Public Analyst is not made conclusive but this only means that the court of facts is free to act on the certificate or not, as it thinks fit.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 113 of 1963

Decided On: 08.02.1965

Mangaldas Raghavji Ruparel and Ors. Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

J.C. Shah, J.R. Mudholkar, K.N. Wanchoo, M. Hidayatullah and S.M. Sikri, JJ.

Author: J.R. Mudholkar, J.

Citation: MANU/SC/0070/1965 : AIR 1966 SC 128

Print Page

Can the court convict an accused for selling buttermilk if the food adulteration Act prescribes no standard?

 It will be seen from the definitions of the various products in Appendix B to the Rules, which we have already extracted, that wherever the rule-making authority intended to prescribe a specific standard for the contents of a product, it definitely states so. The standards of solids-not-fat are fixed for the milk of cow, buffalo, goat or sheep. Though standards are fixed for the said milk products, in defining "skimmed milk", "deshi (cooking) butter", and "skimmed milk dahi or curd" the standard of quality is prescribed with reference to other products. But when we come to butter-milk, no standard for its contents either specifically or with reference to other items is prescribed. A comparative study of the said items leaves no room for doubt that the rule making authority, for reasons, which, we think, are obvious has not thought fit or feasible to prescribe any such standard in regard to the contents of butter-milk. We cannot by inference read some thing in the definition of butter-milk which is not there. The reason for this omission is presumably due to the fact that it is not possible to maintain in butter-milk the same percentage of solids-not-fat content as is found in curds or milk, for water will be added in the process of making butter-milk owing to the fact that butter grains in the churn are washed with cold water which will run off into the butter-milk. Anyhow, we would prefer to rest our judgment on the absence of fixation of any standard in respect of butter-milk rather than on the process of conversion of curds into butter-milk. We should not be understood to have expressed any view on the question whether a prosecution could be launched for adulteration of butter-milk under some other clauses of the definition of "adulterated" in s. 2 of the Act, for in the present case the prosecution was only for not maintaining the standard. {Para 22}

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 93 of 1964

Decided On: 18.01.1966

M.V. Krishnan Nambissan  Vs. State of Kerala

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

K. Subba Rao, M. Hidayatullah and R.S. Bachawat, JJ.

Author: K. Subba Rao, J.

Citations: 1966 AIR 1676, 1966 SCR (3) 373

Print Page

Whether the Court can set aside conviction of a person if food inspector has not undergone requisite training?

 Shri Ramesh Kumar, learned Counsel for the applicant, has contended that Chawla (PW 1) did not possess the requisite training in Food Inspection and sampling work as provided under the Second Proviso to Rule 8(c) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. Therefore, the conviction of the applicant cannot be sustained.

5. A perusal of the evidence of Chawla (PW 1) would indicate that he had not undergone the requisite training for three months to undertake Food Inspection and Sampling Work. It is, thus, evident that the mandatory requirement of law for taking sample of the milk was not done by a competent Food Inspector. The conviction and sentence of the applicant, therefore, cannot be sustained and it is accordingly set aside and revision is allowed. 

 In the High Court of Madhya Pradesh

(Before N.P. Singh, J.)

Gendalal  Vs State of M.P.

Cri. Revision No. 307 of 1993

Decided on February 4, 1997

Citation: 1997 SCC OnLine MP 495 : 1998 FAJ 301 : 1997 FAJ 301

Print Page

Whether court should convict accused for an offence under prevention of food adulteration Act if report of public analyst is vague?

 It is imperative in my opinion that the Public Analyst must find out when a sample falls below the prescribed standard or its constituents are present in quantities not within prescribed limits of variability whether the said adulterated sample renders it injurious to human health or whether it does not render it injurious to public health. The present report of Public Analyst at Ex-38 is silent on this question and, in my opinion, such report which is vague and defective cannot form the basis for any conviction. I am supported in my view by the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Gaffar Khan v. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in 1984 (I) F.A.C. 79. {Para 16}

17. For all these reasons, therefore, I am of the opinion that the mandatory procedure has been neglected. Public Analyst's report is vague and even otherwise the opinion given does not lay down the quality of adulteration as required under Section 2—(ia)—(I) or (m) and last but not the least, the sanction for prosecution under Ex. 39 is also invalid. The conviction of the applicant on the basis of these materials cannot be sustained. Both the courts below have erred in taking the proper view and appreciation of the evidence.

In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur

(Before Puranik, J.)

Nizamuddin Siddikbhai Tigala Vs The State of Maharashtra 

Criminal Revision Application No. 39 of 1985

Decided on July 25, 1985

Citation: 1985 SCC OnLine Bom 460 : (1985) 2 FAC 88

Print Page