1992 (9) TMI 380 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Conviction and sentencing under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.
2. Compliance with Rule 7(3) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules.
3. Whether Rule 7(3) is mandatory or directory.
4. Prejudice to the accused due to delay in delivering the Public Analyst's report.

Issue-wise Analysis:

1. Conviction and Sentencing under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954:

The Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Golaghat convicted the first accused firm and the second accused vendor under Section 16 read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The first accused was fined Rs. 1000/-, while the second accused was sentenced to six months of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, with an additional one month of rigorous imprisonment in default of payment. Accused 3 to 5, partners of the firm, were acquitted. The conviction and sentence were confirmed by the Sessions Judge, Jorhat, leading to the present revision petition.

2. Compliance with Rule 7(3) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules:

The main contention raised by the petitioners was the alleged violation of sub-clause (3) of Rule 7, which mandates the Public Analyst to deliver the report within forty-five days from the receipt of the sample. The sample was taken on 26.8.81, received by the Public Analyst on 1.9.81, and the report was dated 30.9.81. However, the forwarding letter from the Local Health Authority to the Food Inspector was dated 28.10.81, suggesting a delay beyond the stipulated forty-five days.

3. Whether Rule 7(3) is Mandatory or Directory:

The court examined whether Rule 7(3) is mandatory or directory by considering various precedents and principles of statutory interpretation. The Supreme Court's observations in State of Mysore v. V.K Kanqan and Pratap Singh v. Shri Krishna Gupta emphasized that not all procedural laws are mandatory; some are directory, and substantial compliance is sufficient unless prejudice is shown. The court noted that the objective of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act is to prevent adulteration and protect public health, and a rigid interpretation of procedural rules could defeat this purpose.

4. Prejudice to the Accused due to Delay in Delivering the Public Analyst's Report:

The court held that the accused must demonstrate actual prejudice resulting from the delay in receiving the Public Analyst's report. The accused did not request the court to send another part of the sample to the Director, Central Food Laboratory for analysis, nor did they show that the delay affected their ability to defend themselves. The court concluded that Rule 7(3) is directory, not mandatory, and substantial compliance with the rule is sufficient unless the accused can prove prejudice.

Conclusion:

The court dismissed the revision petition, upholding the conviction and sentences imposed on the first and second accused. The court clarified that Rule 7(3) is directory, and any delay in delivering the Public Analyst's report does not automatically vitiate the prosecution unless the accused can demonstrate prejudice. The court emphasized the importance of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act's objective to protect public health and prevent adulteration.