LexSTATE OF H.P. versus NARENDRA KUMAR AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
--- . ~ ST A TE OF H.P. A v. NARENDRA KUMAR AND ANR. FEBRUARY 16, 2004 [DORAISWAMY RAJU AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.] B Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954/Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955-Section 16(1)(a)(i)/Rule 18-Adulteration offood- Prosecution for-Plea of accused No. I that the article was purchased from C . accused No.2-Sealed sample sent to the Public Analyst-Report of Public Analyst showing that seal on container of sample tallied with specimen impression of the seal separately sent-Acquittal by Courts below of accused No. I for non-compliance of the Rule and of accused No.2 for the case of purchase of article not proved-On appeal, held: A presumption can be drawn that requirements of the Rule have been complied with-Presumption u!s 114 D of Evidence Act in relation to regular performance of official acts applies to the report of Public Analyst-Hence acquittal of accused No. I not justifled- However, acquittal order of accused No.2 needs no interference-Evidence Act, 1872-Section 114. Respondent No.I accused was prosecuted u/s I6(I)(a)(i) of Prevention E of Food Adulteration Act, I954. According to prosecution case, Food Inspector after taking the sample of adulterated articles, sealed the same and sent to the Public Analyst. Public Analyst found that the seals and memo received separately were intact. The seal fixed on the container of the sample tallied with the specimen impression of the seal separately sent F by the Food Inspector. On analysis, the sample was found to be adulterated. During trial respondent No.2-accused was impleaded • Respondent No.I pleaded innocence and stated that the articles were purchased from respondent No.2, which was not meant for sale. Respondent No.2 took the plea that the articles were not sold to respondent No.1 and that the receipt produced was fictitious. G Trial Court acquitted accused No.1 holding that there was no compliance of mandatory requirements of Rule 18 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 as there was no definite material about dispatch of the seal impression and the memo separately. Accused No.2 was 413 H 414 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] 2 S.C.R. t\ acquitted on the ground titat accused No.I had failed to show that the bill on which he had placed reliance was genuine. High Court upheld the acquittal of the accused persons. In appeal to this Court, appellant-State contended that when the Public Analyst was satisfied about the dispatch of the article and there 3 was not even any suggestion about any prejudice caused or the correctness of the report of the Public Analyst, it cannot be said that provision of Rule 18 was not complied with. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. The object of Rule 18 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 is to ensure the accuracy of the seal on the sample sent to the Public Analyst by comparison with the specimen impression of the seal sent by the Food Inspector separately. The report of the Public Analyst in terms of ~ule 7(3) shows that he found the same intact and unbroken. ID The seal fixed on the container and on the outer cover of the sample tallied with the specimen impression of the seal separately sent by the Food Inspector. A presumption can be drawn that requirements of Rule 18 have been complied with. The presumption under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 in relation to regular performance of official acts applies to the report of a Public Analyst. However, this presumption is IE rebuttable. No effoirt was made by the accused to dislodge this presumption. There was even no suggestion to the Food Inspector who exhibited the report that there is any untruth in the recital by the Public Analyst. Under sub-section (5) of Section 13 of the Act any document purporting to be a report signed by a Public Analyst unless it has been •F superseded under sub-section (3) of the said Section or any document purporting to be a certificate to be signed by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory, may be used as evidence of the facts stated therein in any proceeding under the Act. (418-H; 419-A-D] State of Maharashtra v. Rajkaran, [1987] Supp. SCC 183, referred to. 1.2. Rule 18, required that a copy of the memorandum and specimen impression of the seal used to seal the packet shall be sent in a sealed packet separately to the Public Analyst. The word 'separately' refers to separate dispatch of articles indicated in
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.