Criminal Application No. 1905 of 2009 · Bombay High Court
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
Application stands dismissed of as such
Provisions considered
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 378(1)
- Prevention of Adulteration Act, 1954 ss. 2(ia)(a)(f)(m), 7(I), 16(1)(a)(i)
- Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 s. 13(2)
Judgment
the trial Court was wrong in coming to the conclusion that the accused must get benefit of Section 19(2) as the sample was from the gunny bag and regarding non compliance of Section 13(2) with Rule 9-a. The trial Court ought to have seen that the prosecution was 2 launched by PW-1 on 11.09.2007 and Local Health Authority has sent copy of the report to Public Analyst and that there was due compliance of Section 13(2) of Act and Rule 9(3) of the Food Adulteration Rules. This contention is challenged by the learned Counsel for the respondent on the ground that the trial Court made reference on settled legal position in the ruling of Syed Shakerali s/o Syed Yusuf Ali .v. State of Maharashtra (reported in 2006 All MR (Cri) 3141) in which it was observed that Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 read with Rule 9-A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules are mandatory and infraction thereof results in causing prejudice to the accused.
These are also salutary provision which prevents frivolous litigation mere showing the dispatch of the report of the Public Analyst is not sufficient, prosecution has to prove that the report has been received by the accused. According to learned APP, the receipt and postal acknowledgment were submitted in the trial Court but this contention is refutted by the learned Counsel for the respondent on the ground that there was no due proof about service of the report of Public Analyst upon accused and, therefore, the trial Court made specific observations in para 31 after making reference to relevant provisions and on the basis of 3 settled position of law found that there was infraction of mandatory/salutary provisions and valuable right was, therefore, made available to the delinquent. Thus, for want of proof of service of the report upon being the accused considering the principle that particular act is required to be done in a particular manner then that act has to be done in that manner and in that manner alone.
Operative part
The trial Court proceeded further to rely upon the ruling in Syed Shakerali s/o Syed Yusuf Ali .v. State of Maharashtra (cited supra) and passed order of acquittal of the accused. Considering that it is a well reasoned order passed by the trial Court, no serious legal infirmity is found and, therefore, this is not a fit case for grant of leave to appeal. Hence, leave is refused. Criminal Application stands dismissed of as such. *rrg. JUDGE
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Application stands dismissed of as such
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 378(1); Prevention of Adulteration Act, 1954 — ss. 2(ia)(a)(f)(m), 7(I), 16(1)(a)(i); Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 — s. 13(2).
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.