This is an appeal from an order of acquittal passed by the Sessions Judge, Cachar, at Silchar whereby he has acquitted the accused of the charges u/s. 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, for short, "the Act". 2. Way back on 27.6.77 the Food Inspector came to the shop of the respondent took samples of "Dahi" and "Bundiya" for analysis and sent the samples to the Public Analyst for analysis and report. The respondent was owner-cum-employee-cum-cook of the stall. It appears from the record of the case that he did not know English so his statement was recorded in the local language in which he could just put his signature. The respondent is aged around 73 years. After the Food Inspector had taken the samples, he sent one part of the sample containing the signature of the accused to the public Analyst. The memorandum with the specimen impression of the teal were also sent to the public Analyst for comparison, as required under the provisions of "the Act" and "the Rules". The Public Analyit reported that the standard of the quality of "Dahi" was within the limits prescribed by the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, for short 'the Rules' read with Appendix-B to "the Rules". The Public Analyst reported that the sample of Bundiyas sent was adulterated as it contained prohibited colour, namely, metanil yellow, a non permitted colouring matter. When the records of the case were sent to the Magistrate he caused a sample to be sent to the Director, Central Food Laboratory for examination and report. The Director, Central Food Laboratory submitted his report, vide Ext. 7. He opined that the added colouring material in 'Bundiya' was metanil yellow, a non permitted coulter dye and, accordingly, they were adulterated u/s. 2 (a) (j) of 'the Act' read with Rule 28 of "the Rules''. Section 13 (5) of "the Act'' provides that the report of the Director of Central Food Laboratory is final and conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein. It supersedes the report of the public Analyst. When the trial commenced two witnesses were examined in support of the allegations, namely, the Food Inspector and the Peon who had accompanied him.
Section 13 (5) of "the Act'' provides that the report of the Director of Central Food Laboratory is final and conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein. It supersedes the report of the public Analyst. When the trial commenced two witnesses were examined in support of the allegations, namely, the Food Inspector and the Peon who had accompanied him. P.W.1, Shri T. K. Dutta Choudhury, Area Food Inspector stated that the samples were taken in containers, they were labelled and addressed in compliance with the provisions of Rules 14 and 15 of "the Rules". The samples were packed, fastened and sealed as required by Rule 16. Thereafter, the containers of samples in a sealed packet along with the memorandum with the specimen impression of the seal were sent to the Public Analyst for analysis separately. The Food Inspector stated that on receipt of the report of the Public Analyst a case was instituted against the accused. On the evidence learned Magistrate convicted the accused and sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. Learned Magistrate turned down the plea of the accused that he had kept the coloured Bundiyas "for feeding birds". On appeal learned Sessions Judge also rejected the plea taken up by the accused. Indeed, if the Bundiyas were made for the birds there was no purpose for decorating the food with colour. Birds have no special fancy for colour like human being. However learned Sessions Judge by the impugned order set aside die conviction and sentences on the ground that the Food Inspector had failed to comply with the provisions of Rules 17 and 18 of "the Rules". Learned Sessions Judge held that the provisions were mandatory and the Rules were violated, and, therefore, no conviction could be sustained on the basis of the report of the Public Analyst. In short, the learned Judge held that the copy of the memorandum and the specimen impression of the seal used to seal the packet were not sent to the Public Analyst separately as was required to be done under Rule 18 of "the Rules". The breach of the rules caused prejudice to the accused and accordingly, the accused was acquitted. 3. The State has preferred this appeal against the order of acquittal.
The breach of the rules caused prejudice to the accused and accordingly, the accused was acquitted. 3. The State has preferred this appeal against the order of acquittal. The first submission is that the provisions of the Rules were fully complied and the order of acquittal is based on total non-reading of the evidence of P. W. 1, Shri T. K. Dutta Choudhury, Area Food Inspector. The second submission is that in any view of the matter the samples were sent to the Director. Central Food Laboratory after due compliance with the provisions of 'the Act" and "the Rules", and, the report of the Director clinched the issue that the sample of food sent was adulterated. 4. P. W. 1, Shri T. K. Dutta Choudhury deposed that he had purchased Bundiyas, separated them into three equal parts and put in three bottles. They were labelled, packed and sealed He stated that material Ext. I was one of the samples which contained the signature of the accused and his signature. He stated that one part of the samples was sent "with the copy of filled up memorandum to the public Analyst by messenger for chemical examination'. He further seated that another copy of the memorandum with the specimen impression of the seal used to seal the packet was "sent to the public Analyst for comparison". Ext. 2 was the copy of the memorandum and Exts. 2(2) and 2(3) were the specimen impression of the seal used. Other samples were kept with the Local Health Authority. He received the report of the public Analyst and proved it as Ext. 3. The Local Heath Authority accorded sanction for prosecution of the accused whereupon he sent the offence report to the court. The accused was served with the copy of the public Analyst report informing him that if he wanted to get the sample analysed by the Central Food Laboratory he could apply to the Court for doing the same. He stated that another part of the samples was sent to the Central Food Laboratory as ordered by the Sub divisional Judical Magistrate, Karimganj and Ext. 7 was the report of the Director, Central Food Laboratory. There was no cross-examination of the witness questioning about the procedure of sealing, fastening and dispatching of the samples to the public Analyst and/or the Director, Central Food Laboratory. It appears that the evidence of P. W. 1.
7 was the report of the Director, Central Food Laboratory. There was no cross-examination of the witness questioning about the procedure of sealing, fastening and dispatching of the samples to the public Analyst and/or the Director, Central Food Laboratory. It appears that the evidence of P. W. 1. Shri T.K. Dutta Choudhury, Area Food Inspector extracted above escaped the notice of the learned Sessions Judge. Apart from this I find from Ext. 2, the memorandum prepared by the public Analyst under Rule 17 of "the Rules" that a copy of the memorandum and specimen impression of the seal used to seal the packet of samples was sent separately. Ext.3, the report of the public Analyst shows that "the seal fixed on the containers and outer cover of the sample tallied with the specimen impression of the seal separately sent by the Food Inspector and the sample was in a condition fit for analysis. The notice issued by the Local Health Authority to the accused about the receipt of the report from the public Analyst informing him that he could get the sample analysed in the Central Food Laboratory, is marked as Ext. 6. Similarly, I find that the certificate of Analysis by the Central Food Laboratory bears the number of the sample of Bundiya received by the Central Food Laboratory with Memo. No. 467. It was certified that the condition of "the seals on the container and the outer covering tallied with the specimen impression of the seals received separately along with a copy of the Memorandum". It is, therefore, seen that not only the Food Inspector stated that he had complied with the provisions of Rules 17 and 18 and sent the copy of the memorandum and the specimen impression of the seal separately but they are borne out from the reports of the public Analyst and the Director of Central Food Laboratory. Situated thus, I have no hesitation in reaching the conclusion that the finding of the learned Judge that the memorandum and the specimen impression of the seal were not sent to the public Analyst was perverse occasioned due to non-residing or passing over the substantive evidence on record resulting in a failure of justice. On perusal of the evidence of P. W. 1.
On perusal of the evidence of P. W. 1. Shri T. K. Dutta Choudhury, Food Inspector, the copy of the memorandum and the reports of the Public Analyst and the Director, Central Food Laboratory I find that no breach of rules 17 and 18 of "the Rules" was committed by the Food Inspector. Under these circumstances the order of acquittal must be set aside, which I hereby do. 5. However, the acquittal was, in all probability, on the grounds of ripe old age of the accused and based on compassionate consideration. Indeed, the accused is an old person, now aged about 73 years. He was the owner-cum-cook cum-sales man, rolled into one. He comes from the poor bracket. He does not know English and apparently the colouring dye was bought by him from market and he is an innocent victim of his ignorance. There has been inordinate delay in disposal of the case and the old accused has suffered agonies, anxieties and miseries since 1977. There are authorities within this Court where instead of sentencing the accused to suffer imprisonment, they have been sentenced to pay only fine. There was a delay of 10 ears and this Court in State of Assam vs. Rameswar Prasad, (1984) 2 GLR 88 imposed fine instead of imposing sentence of imprisonment. In State of Assam vs. Binode Agarwalla, (1985) 2 GLR 332 in view of the delay the accused was sentenced to pay a fine in default to suffer imprisonment for six months. In State of Assam vs. Sivaran Agarwalla, (1985) I GLR (NOC) No. 16 the accused was acquitted in 1979 and the order was set aside by a Division Bench in 1985. The Division Bench held that the ends of justice and crime prevention would be met by sentencing the accused to a fine of Rs. 1000/- In State of Assam vs. Ramnarayan Basudev (1986) 1 GLR 273 the accused were let off with fine of Rs. 1000/- in default, to suffer R. I. for 3 months each. There are other decisions, namely, State vs. Shankarlal Sharma, Government Criminal appeal No. 48 of 1970, decided on 5.2 86; State vs. R. Oil Industries and others, Government Criminal appeal No. 17186, decided on 6.5.86 and Samsul Haque vs. State, Criminal revision No. 123 of 1981, decided on 8.4.86.
1000/- in default, to suffer R. I. for 3 months each. There are other decisions, namely, State vs. Shankarlal Sharma, Government Criminal appeal No. 48 of 1970, decided on 5.2 86; State vs. R. Oil Industries and others, Government Criminal appeal No. 17186, decided on 6.5.86 and Samsul Haque vs. State, Criminal revision No. 123 of 1981, decided on 8.4.86. The deleterious offences merit deterrent punishment to serve a warning note to others not to repeat the crime. These are offences against the public health and to preserve the health of the nation exemplary punishment should be given to the Food adulterators. These aspects stare on the face of the record. It is necessary to bear in mind that it is the Constitutional right of the accused to get quick justice. The right of quick trial has been breached and the accused is no way responsible there for. The offence was combined in 1977. Should I send the accused to jail in 1986 ? The accused was aged about 62/63 years when the offence was committed and now he is an old man of 73 years, in the evening of his life. The accused is poor and suffered for long. He is semi-literate. He is a pent-up force, in true sense of the term. Penal or the pedagogical jurisprudence demands punishment which the accused deserves. The constitutional right of speedy justice has been denied to the accused. Cold-hearted, pitiless, unmerciful and uncompassionate retribution is not the philosophy of our enlightened Constitution and the Law. The accused is not the manufacturer but is an innocent victim of his illiteracy. He bought the colouring material from the market and used it, surely without knowing whether it was prohibited or non-prohibited colour. Therefore, considering the over all facts and circumstances of the case the status, standing, age, inordinate delay in disposal of the case, upon setting aside the order of acquittal I convict the accused u/s. 7 read with Sec. 16 of "the Act'' but sentence him to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for six months. The fine imposed should be paid within 4 (four) months from the date of receipt of the records. 6. In the result the appeal is allowed. 7. POSTSCRIPT-LET THE UNDERDOGS GET THEIR DUE. The adulterators are the devils.
1000/- in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for six months. The fine imposed should be paid within 4 (four) months from the date of receipt of the records. 6. In the result the appeal is allowed. 7. POSTSCRIPT-LET THE UNDERDOGS GET THEIR DUE. The adulterators are the devils. The provisions of "the Act" and "the Rules'' has to be made to combat the evils of the devils. The law accords with the provisions of Articles 39 (e) and 47 of our enlightened Constitution. The questions : Whether the object and purposes of the law have been achieved ? Whether the law needs changes in the socio-economic masque scene prevalent in India ? A bird's eye view of the statute gives an impression that the English law on the subject has been bodily lifted and planted in Indian soil. In a country like ours where there is so much poverty, ignorance and illiteracy, would it be fair to presume that the highly technical law is understood by the peddler, petty shop-keepers, who are enmeshed, prosecuted and punished ? The adulterated materials are manufactured somewhere. They are sold by long pursed public and private distribution system, but the manufacturers and distributors go Scot free. The victims are the poor and the illiterates. They are being caught and punished for their illiteracy