1978 (2) TMI 223 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Non-compliance with Rule 22 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955.
2. Whether Rule 22 is mandatory or directory.
3. The evidentiary value of the Public Analyst's report.
4. The impact of non-compliance on the validity of trials and convictions under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Non-compliance with Rule 22 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955:
The primary issue in these appeals is whether non-compliance with Rule 22 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, vitiates the trial or the conviction recorded under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. Rule 22 specifies the quantity of sample of food to be sent to the Public Analyst for analysis. The court examined whether sending a lesser quantity than prescribed affects the validity of the analysis and subsequent legal proceedings.

2. Whether Rule 22 is mandatory or directory:
The court analyzed whether Rule 22 is mandatory or directory. It was argued that the use of the term "approximate" in the rule indicates its directory nature. The court referred to various principles of statutory interpretation, including guidelines from Maxwell on Interpretation of Statutes and Craies on Statute Law. The court concluded that Rule 22 is directory, not mandatory. It emphasized that the purpose of the rule is to ensure correct analysis, and if the quantity sent is sufficient for analysis, non-compliance with the exact quantity prescribed does not vitiate the evidentiary value of the Public Analyst's report.

3. The evidentiary value of the Public Analyst's report:
The court discussed the significance of the Public Analyst's report under Section 13 of the Act, which can be used as evidence of the facts stated therein. The court noted that unless the report is demolished, shaken, or becomes doubtful, it is final and conclusive evidence of the facts stated. The court stated that a person can be convicted under Section 16(1)(a)(i) merely on the basis of the Public Analyst's report. The court emphasized that the report has great sanctity for protecting public health and is crucial for the prosecution and defense.

4. The impact of non-compliance on the validity of trials and convictions:
The court examined whether non-compliance with Rule 22 causes injustice or infraction of the provisions. It referred to the case of Rajal Das Guru Namal Parnanani v. The State of Maharashtra, where the conviction was set aside due to non-compliance with the quantity required for analysis. The court clarified that a lesser quantity could still enable correct analysis, and non-compliance does not necessarily cause injustice. The court also referred to the newly added Rule 22B, which states that the quantity of sample sent for analysis shall be considered sufficient unless the Public Analyst or Director reports otherwise. The court held that Rule 22B clarifies the law and does not amend it.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that Rule 22 is directory, and non-compliance with the exact quantity prescribed does not vitiate the trial or conviction if the quantity sent is sufficient for analysis. The court emphasized that Food Inspectors should comply with the rule as far as possible. The court decided not to interfere with the orders of acquittal in the cases before it, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances and the fact that the decision in Parnanani's case had held the field for about three years. The court disposed of the appeals by laying down the correct proposition of law without making any consequential orders setting aside the acquittal of any respondents or sending back the cases to the lower courts.