Acquittal Upheld Due to Non-Compliance With Mandatory Sampling Procedures and Lack of Independent Witnesses

The Appellant (Food Inspector) initiated prosecution against Respondent No. 2 (shop owner) and Respondent No. 1 (his brother) for allegedly selling adulterated mustard and groundnut oil on September 22, 1990

P.W.1 claimed he purchased samples and sent them for analysis, which subsequently revealed the mustard oil was adulterated and the food license had expired in 1989

The Respondents denied the charges, claiming Respondent No. 1 was forced to sign documents and that the shop actually sold trunks and cycles, not groceries

The Trial Court acquitted the Respondents on April 30, 1993, which the Appellant challenged in this appeal

1. Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the samples were collected and analyzed in compliance with the mandatory procedures of the P.F.A. Act

2. Whether the lack of independent local witnesses and failure to properly serve notice under Section 13(2) vitiated the prosecution's case

3. Whether there is any perversity in the Trial Court’s judgment of acquittal warranting interference by the High Court

The court applied Section 10(7) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, which requires the Food Inspector to call upon one or more independent persons to be present during sampling

It further applied Section 13(2) of the Act, 1954, regarding the mandatory requirement to serve the public analyst's report and notice of the right to have the second sample analyzed by the Central Food Laboratory

the court adhered to Section 16(1) and Rule 50 regarding licensing and penalties for adulteration

The High Court observed that the prosecution failed to examine any independent witnesses despite P.W.1's admission that outsiders were present, constituting a failure to comply with Section 10(7)

The court noted that Exts. 2 and 3 lacked endorsements stating they were read over to the accused, supporting the defense plea of coercion

the court found that the mandatory provision of Section 13(2) was not strictly complied with, as the Local Health Authority was not examined and the delivery of notice was not sufficiently proven

The evidence regarding the actual nature of the shop was also found to be contradictory, leading to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove the Respondents were managing a grocery store at the time of the incident

The High Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment of acquittal. The order dated 30.04.1993 passed by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Berhampur, stands affirmed