1982 (9) TMI 245 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Acquittal of the accused under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.
2. Necessity of corroboration to the deposition of the Food Inspector.
3. Violation of Rule 9(j) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules.
4. Interpretation and application of Rule 9-A in a similar context.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The State appealed against the acquittal of the accused under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The prosecution alleged that the accused sold Shahajira to the Food Inspector, which was found to contain extraneous matter. The trial Magistrate acquitted the accused due to lack of corroboration between the testimonies of the Food Inspector and the witness. The prosecution's case was based on the testimony of the Food Inspector and a witness to the sale.

2. The trial Magistrate's decision was criticized for requiring corroboration to the Food Inspector's testimony. The Public Prosecutor argued that corroboration was not necessary if the court found the Food Inspector's evidence credible. However, the defense highlighted discrepancies in the timeline of events, leading to the acquittal being upheld.

3. The defense pointed out a violation of Rule 9(j) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, which mandates sending a copy of the Public Analyst's report to the accused promptly after filing the case. In this case, the report was provided to the accused over a year after the complaint was filed, constituting a clear breach of the rule.

4. The judgment referenced Rule 9-A, which replaced Rule 9(j) and required immediate forwarding of the analysis report to the accused upon the institution of prosecution. A previous case established that any delay in sending the report could result in acquittal. The court found the application of Rule 9-A analogous to the original Rule 9(j) and upheld the acquittal based on this violation.

In conclusion, the appeal was dismissed, and the acquittal of the accused was confirmed based on the contravention of Rule 9(j) and the interpretation of Rule 9-A in a similar context.