[PFA Act] Failure To Spread Dragnet Of Law Around Manufacturer & Distributor Have Spared Them From Criminal Prosecution: Bombay HC

The Bombay High Court has allowed the revision application on behalf of the applicant-accused convicted under the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, and reiterated that non-disclosure of the name of the manufacturer and distributor could not be used against him unless and until prosecution was launched against the manufacturer or distributor for storage and sale of adulterated food article.

The Single Judge Bench of Justice G.A. Sanap observed that “since the basic purpose of the Food Inspector was served, notice to the accused in terms of Section 14-A of the Act of 1954 was merely a formality. Without such notice, the Food Inspector could have spread the dragnet around the manufacturer. It is, therefore, apparent that failure to spread the dragnet of law around the manufacturer and the distributor, has spared them from serious action in the form of criminal prosecution”.

The Bench referred to the decision of Gurumukhadas Hotchand Bhojawani vs. the State of Maharashtra [2017 All M.R. (Cri.) 2020], to reiterate that once the Food Inspector had information indicating the manufacturer or origin of the article, then the vendor for non-compliance of notice under Section 14-A of Act of 1954 could not be prosecuted and he had to be exonerated.

Accordingly, the Bench acquitted the applicant-accused of the offence punishable under Sections 16(1) and 16(1-C) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and ordered that the fine amount, if any, deposited by the applicant-accused, had to be refunded to him.

Advocate J. J. Agrawal appeared for the Applicant, whereas APP S. A. Ashirgade appeared for the non-Applicant.

In the present case, the applicant-accused was running a shop under the name of ‘Umesh Traders’ and on 02.12.2002, the Food Inspector along with ranch witnesses paid a visit to the shop. The Food Inspector purchased 450 ml groundnut oil as a sample from the applicant-accused and by notice in Form-VI, was informed that the sample was taken for analysis. The Food Inspector had also issued a notice under Section 14-A of the Act of 1954 to the applicant-accused and called upon him to disclose the name of the manufacturer of the groundnut oil which he was unable to inform. The Public Analyst analysis that the samples of groundnut oil did not conform to the standard of groundnut oil as per the provisions of the Food and Drug Administration Rules, 1955. Subsequently, the Food Inspector filed a complaint against the applicant accused of the commission of an offence under Section 16(1) of the Act of 1954. Later, he filed a separate complaint against the applicant-accused for the offence punishable under Section 16(1-C) of the Act of 1954.

After considering the submission, the Bench noted that there was a gap of 28 days between the date of receipt of the sample and the date of the report, and there was no mention of the date of analysis of the sample by the Public Analyst.

The Bench also found that the sample was not analyzed by the Public Analyst himself but by another officer, and the chain of custody form, which was required to be maintained by the analyst in the process of analysis of the sample, had not been placed on record.

While adding that as per the provisions of Section 42 sub-section 2 of the Act of 2006, the Food Analyst needed to submit the report to the designated officer within 14 days from the date of receipt of the sample, by specifically stating in the report the method of sampling and method of tests applied, the High Court stated that there was no evidence on record to overcome the fundamental flaw and lacuna in the case of the prosecution.

Observing that the mouth of the sample bottles was not sealed through sealing wax, the High Court clarified that evidence lacked the particulars regarding proper sampling, packing, and sealing of the samples, and on this ground also the applicant-accused was entitled to get the benefit.

Proceeding further, the Bench found that the complaint was filed after seven months and fifteen days from the date of the sample, and after more than 1 month and 15 days after the expiry of the Best Before Date of the sample.

The High Court also held that the applicant-accused was deprived of his right to get the sample re-analyzed before the expiry of Best Before Date, as in this case, the only fault of the applicant-accused was that he did not opt for re-analysis of the sample.

However, it could not stand in his way to claim the benefit of non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of Section 13(2) of the Act of 1954, cleared the Court.

While dealing with the case of non-compliance with the provisions of Section 14-A by the applicant-accused and thereby commission of an offence punishable under Section 16(1-C) of the Act of 1954, the Bench noted that as per Section 14-A of the Act of 1954, on being enquired, the applicant-accused was under an obligation to disclose to the Food Inspector the name, address, and other particulars of the person from whom he had purchased the article of food, and failure on the part of the applicant-accused to provide such information was punishable under Section 16(1-C) of the Act of 1954.

The Food Inspector, on being confronted with the manufacturer, was duty bound to visit the company, ascertain the manufacturer, take samples from the said company and fix the liability appropriately, and it was his duty to seize all the stock forming part of the same batch of production and call upon the vendors of the same product to surrender the stock available with them and inform the prospective consumers, added the Bench.

Cause Title: Jairam v. State of Maharashtra

Click here to read/download the Judgment