Rajasthan HC Upholds Acquittal Of Man Carrying 80 Kg Milk, Citing Failure To Prove Service Of Notice Of Right To Central Lab Testing

On 14 August 1982, a Food Inspector intercepted Govind Ram while he was carrying two containers of milk on a motorcycle, purchased a sample, and divided it into three bottles for analysis.

After the Public Analyst reported the milk as adulterated, prosecution was instituted under Sections 7 and 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.

The Magistrate acquitted Govind Ram, finding, among other matters, that the prosecution had not established valid sanction or effective service of the notice and report required by Section 13(2), and had not adequately proved the Inspector’s authority or proper mixing of the milk before sampling.

The State appealed against the acquittal.

Sections 7 and 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, formed the basis of the prosecution, while Section 18-A was also referred to in the framing of charges.

Section 13(2) confers a valuable right to have a second sample analysed by the Central Food Laboratory; the accused must receive an effective opportunity to exercise that right, and failure to provide it may cause prejudice and vitiate the prosecution.

A prosecution sanction is a statutory safeguard requiring the competent authority’s independent application of mind; a mechanical sanction is insufficient.

The Court cited Girishbhai Dayabhai Shah v. State of Gujarat (2009) in discussing the Section 13(2) right.

It also applied the principle that an acquittal reinforces the presumption of innocence and should not be disturbed absent findings that are manifestly unreasonable, perverse, or contrary to the evidence.

The High Court upheld the trial court’s assessment that the sanction appeared to have been issued on a cyclostyled form with the competent authority merely signing it, supporting the conclusion that independent application of mind had not been shown.

The Inspector could not confirm that the Section 13(2) communication had been received, and the prosecution therefore failed to establish that Govind Ram had an effective opportunity to seek Central Food Laboratory analysis.

The Court also considered the missing proof of the Inspector’s authority, the discrepancy between the sampling form and panchnama concerning whether the milk was stirred, and the evidence that no sale was witnessed and an independent witness had turned hostile.

Taken cumulatively, these were relevant grounds for reasonable doubt, and the appellate standard did not justify displacing the acquittal.

The State’s appeal was dismissed, and the acquittal dated 7 April 1994 was left undisturbed.