FOOD INSPECTOR, ERNAKULAM AND ANR. versus P.S. SREENIVASA SHENOY

Citation: [2000] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 567 · Decided: 19-07-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.T. THOMAS · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

-
FOOD INSPECTOR, ERNAKULAM AND ANR. 
v. 
P.S. SREENIV ASA SHENOY 
JULY 19, 2000 
[K.T. THOMAS AND R.P. SETHI, JJ.] 
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954: 
A 
B 
Sections 13 and 20(1)-A sample of toor dal was sent for analysis of 
Public Analyst-Public Analyst giving a report that /oar dal was adulterated C 
with Kesari dal-Prosecution started on the basis of report o; 
,1blic Analyst 
under Section 16( I-A) read with Sections 2(i-a)(h) and 7 (i) against the 
respondent-Later, on an application of respondent, a part of the sample was 
sent for the examination of Director, Central Food Laboratory, who gave a 
report that the toor dal was adulterated as it contained tartrazine (synthetic D 
coal tar dye)-On report of Director, a summary trial converted into warrant 
case trial-Revision against the order of Magistrate allowed by the High 
Court on the ground that the appellant had not obtained fresh sanction 
under Section 20 of the Act on the strength of the new facts stated in the 
certificate of the Director, Central Food Laboratory-Held, fresh sanction 
not required-Sanction was required only at the stage of institution of the E 
prosecution and not at post institutional stage when the certificate of the 
Director, Central Food Laboratory could be brought in evidence-If the 
amended charge includes a new offence for which previous sanction is 
necessary, then prosecution for such new offence cannot be started without 
such sanction-Under second limb of Section 216(5) Cr.PC also, no fresh F 
sanction is necessary-Criminal procedure Code, 1973, Section 216(5). 
Sections 13(2), (2-B), (2-D), (3) and (5)--Certificate of Director, Central 
Food Laboratory-Prior to institution of prosecution, a report of Public 
Analyst can be obtained-But after the institution of case, certificate of 
Director, can be obtained and brought in evidence. 
G 
Appellant purchased toor dal from the grocery shop of the respondent 
as a sample. One of the three parts of the sample was sent to a Public Analyst, 
who gave his report stating that the sample contained kesari dal and thus the 
sample was adulterated. Appellant filed complaint before the Additional Chief H 
567 
568 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] SUPP. I S.C.R. 
A Judicial Magistrate for offences committed under Section 16(1-A) read with 
Sections 2(i-a)(h) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and a process 
was issued by the Magistrate to the accused respondent. After entering 
appearance, the respondent moved an application for sending second part of 
sample for analysis to the Director, Central Food Laboratory. An order was 
B passed accordingly. After analysis of the sample, the Director, Central Food 
Laboratory sent a report to the Magistrate stating that the sample was 
adulterated as it contained synthetic coal tar dye (tartrizine). On receipt of 
the certificate the case was converted from a summary trial to a warrant case 
trial. After examining three witnesses the trial Magistrate framed charges 
against the respondent under Sections 2(i-a)(h) and 7(i) read with Section 
C 16(1-A) of the Act. The respondent challenged the said order before the High 
Court by way of a revision petition. Single Judge of the High Court allowed 
the revision on the ground that no sanction was obtained under Section 20 of 
the Act or. the strength of the new facts revealed in the certificate issued by 
the Director, Central Food Laboratory. Magistrate was directed by the High 
D Court to give an opportunity to the appellant to place the certificate of the 
Director, Central Food Laboratory before the appropriate authority for giving 
the sanction afresh and if such sanction is not procured, drop the prosecution 
against the respondent. Hence this appeal. 
It was contended by the appellant that by way of a notification dated 
E 20.06.1996 issued by the Government, Food Inspectors of the State have been 
authorised to institute prosecution proceedings under Section 20 of the Act, 
but the said notification was not considered by the High Court. 
It was contended by the accused-respondent that the High Court was 
not told about the said general authorisation and hence the Single Judge would 
F have proceeded on the premise that the prosecution was instituted on the 
strength of the written consent granted to the complainant in respect of this 
case. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
G 
HELD : I.I. When the certificate of the Director, Central Food 
Laboratory superseded the report of the P

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.