9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether Rule 7(3) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules is mandatory or directory. 2. The impact of delay in delivering the report of analysis on the prosecution. 3. The effect of delay on the accused's right to a fair trial and potential prejudice. Detailed Analysis: 1. Whether Rule 7(3) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules is mandatory or directory: The primary issue in this case is whether Rule 7(3) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, which stipulates a 45-day period for the Public Analyst to deliver the report of analysis to the Local Health Authority, is mandatory or directory. The Sessions Judge had acquitted the first accused solely on the ground that the report was delivered on the 46th day, thus violating Rule 7(3). The High Court of Bombay has consistently held that the rule is mandatory. However, the Kerala High Court has seen conflicting views on this matter. The Full Bench was tasked with providing an authoritative pronouncement. The court analyzed the statutory framework and the social objectives of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, emphasizing its role in ensuring the purity and edibility of food. The court noted that the Act is a social legislation aimed at protecting public health and that strict adherence to technicalities should not defeat this purpose. The court concluded that Rule 7(3) should be interpreted as directory rather than mandatory, stating that "reasonable despatch is certainly the desirable and laudable pattern." The court emphasized that minor delays should not scuttle the entire operation of preventing food adulteration. 2. The impact of delay in delivering the report of analysis on the prosecution: The court examined the impact of delay in delivering the report of analysis on the prosecution. It noted that the statutory framework does not indicate any time limit for subsequent actions by the local authority or the vendor's right to challenge the analysis. The court highlighted that the Director's report, which has statutory finality, is not subject to the same time constraints, further supporting the directory nature of Rule 7(3). The court also referred to earlier decisions, including those of the Andhra Pradesh and Himachal Pradesh High Courts, which supported the directory interpretation of similar provisions. The court agreed with the reasoning that a mandatory interpretation would lead to public inconvenience and defeat the Act's objectives. It noted that human factors, such as delays in postal or communication transitions, should not frustrate meaningful social action. 3. The effect of delay on the accused's right to a fair trial and potential prejudice: The court addressed the issue of whether the delay in delivering the report of analysis prejudiced the accused's right to a fair trial. It noted that the accused's right to challenge the analysis and seek a second opinion from the Director of the Central Laboratory remains intact, regardless of the delay. The court emphasized that the delay must be assessed on a case-by-case basis to determine if it caused actual prejudice to the accused. The court observed that the accused's argument based on the deterioration of the sample due to delay is a misconception. The time limit in Rule 7(3) relates to the delivery of the report, not the analysis itself. If the analysis is conducted within the stipulated period, no prejudice arises from the delay in delivering the report. Conclusion: The Full Bench of the Kerala High Court declared that Rule 7(3) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules is directory in nature. The court set aside the Sessions Judge's judgment acquitting the accused and restored the trial court's conviction and sentence. The first accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and pay a fine of Rs. 1,000, with an additional two months of imprisonment in default of payment. The conviction under Section 16(i)(a)(ii) read with Rule 50 of the PFA Rules and Rule 10 of the Kerala PFA Rules, with a sentence of three months' imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500, was also restored. The sentences were to run concurrently. The criminal appeal was disposed of accordingly.
|
