Sections 7(1), 2(ia), (m) read with Section 16(1)(a) and(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (for short, ‘the Act’).-the certificate given by the Director, Central Forensic Science Laboratory supercedes the report given by Public Analyst=The Public Analyst, after analysis, opined that the sample does not conform to the standards of milk fat and therefore the same is adulterated.-After receipt of notice under Section 13(2) of the Act, the accused made a request to send a second sample to the Central Food Laboratory, Pune. Accordingly, second sample was sent and the Public Analyst opined that there is no sub-standard milk fat. =There cannot be any dispute that the certificate given by the Director, Central Forensic Science Laboratory supercedes the report given by Public Analyst under Section 13(3) of the Act. A perusal of Ex.C1, the report given by the Central Food Laboratory, Pune, discloses that the content of the milk fat is 12%, whereas the prescribed standard is not less than 10%. Therefore, if that is taken into consideration, the accused is entitled for a benefit of doubt.

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.19 of 2013

JUDGMENT:

        This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 14.07.2009 passed in C.C.No.715 of 2007 on the file of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ongole, whereunder and whereby the respondent/accused was acquitted of the offence punishable under Sections 7(1), 2(ia), (m) read with Section 16(1)(a) and(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (for short, ‘the Act’).

2.      The appellant herein is the complainant and the respondent herein is the accused in the above Calendar Case.

3.      The allegations in the complaint are:

On 16.05.2007, the Food Inspector - complainant, along with his staff inspected the shop of the accused, who was transacting business; that during inspection, the Food Inspector found 100 cups of ice cream, each 50 grams, without label, kept for sale of human consumption; that the Food Inspector purchased 18 cups of ice cream by paying Rs.90/- and divided the same into three parts, and sent one sample to the Public Analyst for analysis.  The Public Analyst, after analysis, opined that the sample does not conform to the standards of milk fat and therefore the same is adulterated. After obtaining permission from the competent authority, prosecution was launched against the accused.

4.      During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.P1 to P16 were marked.  On behalf of the accused, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced.  Ex.C.1 was marked through Court. After considering the evidence on record, the trial Court acquitted the accused. 

5.      Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent.

6.      For the charges levelled against the accused, the Food Inspector has to establish that the sample was adulterated.  In the instant case, one of the samples was sent to the Public Analyst, who opined that the same does not conform to the standard of milk fats and therefore it was adulterated.  

After receipt of notice under Section 13(2) of the Act, the accused made a request to send a second sample to the Central Food Laboratory, Pune.  Accordingly, second sample was sent and the Public Analyst opined that there is no sub-standard milk fat.  

There cannot be any dispute that the certificate given by the Director, Central Forensic Science Laboratory supercedes the report given by Public Analyst under Section 13(3) of the Act.  A perusal of Ex.C1, the report given by the Central Food Laboratory, Pune, discloses that the content of the milk fat is 12%, whereas the prescribed standard is not less than 10%.  Therefore, if that is taken into consideration, the accused is entitled for a benefit of doubt. Hence, the order passed by the trial Court does not warrant any interference, as there are no compelling or substantial reasons to interfere with the same and the same is liable to be dismissed.

7.      Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed.   Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Appeal shall stand closed.

________________

                                                              (K.C. BHANU, J.)

27.11.2012

KH