9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Prosecution under Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - Defense of purchasing from a licensed manufacturer - Obligation to implead manufacturer under Section 20A - Proof of sample origin - Defense under Section 19(2)(a)(i) - Requirement to disclose details of purchase - Separate prosecution against manufacturer - Validity of acquittal. Analysis: The judgment pertains to a case where the accused, Kishan Lal, was prosecuted under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 for selling adulterated sauce. The Food Inspector purchased three bottles of sauce from the accused for analysis, which were found to be adulterated. The accused claimed innocence, stating he had purchased the bottles from a licensed manufacturer, Vijay Fruit Industries, and sold them in the same condition. The trial magistrate acquitted the accused based on this defense. The prosecution appealed the acquittal, arguing that the trial magistrate should have impleaded Vijay Fruit Industries under Section 20A of the Act to avoid multiple prosecutions. However, the court held that failure to implead the manufacturer does not bar a separate trial. The court emphasized that the accused had successfully proven his defense under Section 19(2)(a)(i) by purchasing from a licensed manufacturer, thus justifying the acquittal. Regarding the proof of sample origin, the court noted that the Food Inspector clearly stated he purchased the bottles in "original packing" from the accused. The court rejected the argument that the bottles were not from Vijay Fruit Industries, as the prosecution's own case confirmed the origin. The court disregarded the statement of a defense witness, Raj Kumar, as his testimony did not contradict the accused's defense under Section 19(2)(a)(i). The court further ruled that the Food Inspector was not obligated to file a joint complaint against the manufacturer and could prosecute them separately, which the Corporation chose to do. The court upheld the acquittal, concluding that the evidence supported the accused's defense and there was no need for a retrial. The judgment confirmed the acquittal and dismissed the appeal, affirming the validity of the defense and the trial magistrate's decision.
|
