RAJENDRA AND TWO OTHERS versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Citation: [1991] 3 S.C.R. 96 · Decided: 18-07-1991 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. AHMADI · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
RAJENDRA AND TWO OTHERS 
v. 
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 
JULY 18, 1991 
[A.M. AHMADI, V. RAMASWAMI AND M.M. PUNCHHI, JJ.] 
... 
B 
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954/ Prevention of Food 
Adulteration Rules, 1955: S. 7 r/w s. 16, s. 13(2)/rr. 7(3), 9A:-Food 
adulteration-Food article found adulterated-Delay in analysis report 
-Local Health Authority not sending 'immediately after prosecution' 
the report to appellants-Acquittal by trial Magistrate-High Court 
c recomputed the period and found the report sent within prescribed 
period-Order of conviction and six months' imprisonment with fine 
awarded to each appellant-Validity of. 
Non-compliance of r. 9-A not fatal-Word 'immediately' inter-
preted to convey 'reasonable despatch and promptitude'. 
D 
Partnership concern: Food adulteration-Food article sold by 
shopkeeper found adulterated-Alleged partnership of three brothers-
Burden of proof of partnership on the prosecution-benefit of doubt 
given to remaining two appellants. 
). 
Appellant No. 1 was found exhibiting and offering for sale tea 
E 
dust. P. W. 1, the Food Inspector purchased tea dust in the requisite 
quantity for test. Appellant no. 1 told P.W. I that the shop which was 
being run by him was a partnership concern of the three brothers-
appellant no. I to 3. On receipt of Public Analyst's report, prosecution 
was launched against the appellants under s. 7 read with s. 16 of the 
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. 
./ 
F 
Before the trial Magistrate the facts regarding sale by appellant 
no. 1 of the food article and the same being adulterated as reported by 
the Public Analyst were not disputed. The appellants however, argued 
that the Public Analyst did not send the report within the period pre-
scribed under r. 7(3) Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 and 
G 
the Local Health Authority did not forward the copy of the result of the 
analysis to the appellants 'immediately' after institution of the prosecu-
lion as envisaged by r. 9A. Since there was a delay of nearly a month on 
that count, the trial Magistrate viewed this lapse as fatal to the prosecu-
lion. He also held that in the covering letter while sending the report, it 
was not mentioned that the appellants had a right to have analysed the 
H 
second sample by the Central Food Laboratory in terms ofs. 13(2) of the 
96 
RAJENDRA v. STATE OF M.P. 
97 
Act. He, therefore, acquitted the appellants. 
A 
On appeal by the State, the High Court reversed the order of 
acquittal. It convicted the appellants and sentenced each of them to six 
~ 
months' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5000 each. 
Aggrieved the appellants preferred the appeal by special leave to this 
Court. 
B 
On consideration of evidence regarding guilt of all the appellants 
and requirements of s. 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration 
Act, 1954 and rr. 7(3) and 9A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration 
-
Rules, 1955, 
Disposing of the appeal, this Court, 
c 
HELD: 1. In the instant case, there was no basis to sustain the 
conviction of appellants no. 2 and 3. There was no evidence worth the 
name to conclusively prove their complicity beyond reasonable doubt. 
The only case set up by the prosecution against these appellants was D 
that appellant no. 1 was alleged to have told the Food Inspector that the 
-'. 
shop was being run in partnership by him with his these two brothers. 
Appellant no. I alone made the sale in question to the Food Inspector. 
Burden was on the prosecution to prove the existence of partnership. 
Even if the Food Inspector is believed that appellant no. I told him that 
the shop was being run in partnership, that per se was not enough to 
E 
inculpate the remaining two appellants without further evidence. There 
is an area of doubt in this sphere and extending the same to appellants 
no. 2 and 3, they are acquitted. [lOOG-H; IOIA-B] 
' 
The case of first appellant stood singled out. His conviction was 
well deserved, which should be maintained and the sentence confirmed. 
l 
However, fine was to be reduced to Rs.1,000. [IOIC] 
2. The expression 'immediately' in r. 9A of the Prevention of 
Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, is intended to convey a sense of con-
tinnily rather than urgency. What must be done is to forward the report 
at the earliest opportunity, so as to facilitate the exercise of the statu-
G 
tory right under s. 13(2) in good ar.d sufficient time before the prosecu-
., 
lion commences leading evidence.

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