9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Conviction under Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 based on Analyst report and procedural irregularities in prosecution notice. Analysis: The judgment by K.M. Natarajan, J., of the Madras High Court dealt with a revision against the conviction of the petitioner under Section 7(1) read with 2(i-a)(M) and Section 16(l)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The petitioner was convicted by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate and the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pondicherry, for selling adulterated cow's milk. The case involved the Food Inspector purchasing milk from the accused, analyzing the sample, and prosecuting based on the findings. The defense plea was one of denial. The primary contention raised by the petitioner's counsel was the procedural irregularity in the notice under Section 13(2) of the Act, which failed to mention the Court where the prosecution was launched, depriving the petitioner of the right to challenge the Analyst report. The petitioner argued that this omission prejudiced the case. The Government Advocate for Pondicherry contended that the omission was not fatal and the delay in prosecution did not vitiate the case. The judgment referenced previous decisions to support the arguments made. In a case where the Court failed to specify the prosecuting Court in the notice under Section 13(2) of the Act, it was held that such non-compliance of a mandatory provision could vitiate the prosecution case. Another case highlighted the accused's right to have the sample examined by the Central Food Laboratory and the necessity of being informed about the Court where the prosecution was launched. Failure to provide this information within the prescribed period could render the conviction unsustainable. The judgment emphasized the mandatory nature of such provisions and the importance of compliance for a fair trial. The Court, after considering the arguments and precedents, concluded that the failure to mention the Court in the prosecution notice indeed vitiated the entire prosecution against the petitioner. As the petitioner was deprived of a statutory right to challenge the Analyst report, the conviction was deemed unsustainable. Consequently, the revision was allowed, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the petitioner was acquitted of the charge. Any fine paid was directed to be refunded to the petitioner, bringing a resolution to the case based on procedural irregularities and statutory rights under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.
|
