Analysis of food sample after expiry and delayed Section 13(2) notice violate mandatory rights, warranting discharge.

The respondent was accused of selling adulterated packaged water.

A Food Inspector collected a sample on 30.10.2004.

The sample was analyzed between 22.11.2004 and 02.12.2004, which resulted in a report declaring the water adulterated.

A complaint was subsequently filed under Sections 2(1-A)(A), 2(1-A)(M), 7(1), 7(3), and 7(5) of the Food Adulteration Act ("the Act").

Crucially, the manufacturing date of the sample was 16.10.2004, with a "best before" duration of one month (expiring 16.11.2004); however, the analysis was conducted after the expiry date.

The mandatory notice under Section 13(2) of the Act, allowing the accused to seek re-analysis, was issued more than one year later.

The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tapi, discharged the accused under Section 245(1) of the CrPC on 05.01.2017.

The State of Gujarat filed this revision application challenging that discharge.

1. Whether the trial court erred in discharging the accused on the grounds of non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of Section 13(2) of the Food Adulteration Act.

2. Whether the analysis of a food sample conducted after its expiry date constitutes a valid basis for prosecution.

3. Whether the High Court should exercise its limited revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 of the CrPC to interfere with the trial court's order of discharge.

The Court applied Section 13(2) of the Food Adulteration Act, which provides the accused with a mandatory right to have a sample re-analyzed by the Central Food Laboratory to challenge the Food Analyst's report.

It further applied Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), defining the scope of revisional jurisdiction as discretionary and limited to correcting manifest errors of law or glaring procedural defects.

The Court relied on Raj Kumar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2019) 9 SCC 427 regarding discharge.

The Court relied on Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chander (2012) 9 SCC 460 regarding the restricted scope of interference in revision.

Several High Court and Supreme Court precedents were cited to establish that inordinate delay and analysis post-expiry violate the mandatory rights of the accused.

The Court observed that the sample was analyzed between 22.11.2004 and 02.12.2004, whereas the product’s shelf life had already expired on 16.11.2004.

This delay in analysis, coupled with the fact that the Section 13(2) notice was issued a full year after the sample was taken, effectively deprived the respondent of his statutory right to seek a second opinion from the Central Food Laboratory while the sample was still fit for analysis.

The Court reasoned that such a breach of mandatory procedure is fatal to the prosecution.

Regarding the State's challenge, the Court emphasized that revisional jurisdiction does not permit a re-appreciation of evidence or acting as an Appellate Court.

Since the trial court’s findings were based on admitted facts regarding the timeline and expiry, the High Court found no perversity, illegality, or miscarriage of justice in the discharge order.

The Court affirmed that the mandatory procedural safeguards must be strictly followed in food adulteration cases.

Consequently, the Criminal Revision Application was dismissed, and the trial court's order of discharge was upheld.