Allegation of adulteration, under Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, cannot be sustained as mandatory requirement of Sec. 13(2) was not complied with: SC

Read Judgment: Narayana Prasad Sahu vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

Pankaj Bajpai

New Delhi, November 2, 2021:While setting aside the conviction and sentence of Narayana Prasad Sahu (appellant), the Supreme Court has observed that the allegation of adulteration of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (PFA Act) cannot be sustained as the mandatory requirement of Section 13(2) of PFA was not complied with. 

The observation came in reference to the conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable u/s (16)(1)(a)(i)(ii) of the PFA Act for alleged violation of clauses (i) and (v) of Section 7 of the Act of 1954 i.e., adulteration in chana dal. 

The counsel for the appellant submitted that as mandatorily required by Section 13(2) of the Act of 1954, a copy of report of Public Analyst was not supplied to the appellant, as a result of which his valuable right to get the samples analysed by Central Food Laboratory had been defeated.

Opposing the same, the counsel for the State contended that the prosecution adopted one of the two permissible modes of sending the report by registered post to the appellant-accused. 

He further submitted that endorsements on the postal packet containing the report showed that after giving intimation to the appellant, the Postman unsuccessfully attempted to serve the report to the appellant on six occasions and only thereafter, returned the envelope.

After considering the allegations and provisions of 1954 Act, the Division Bench of Justice Ajay Rastogi & Justice Abhay S. Oka found that despite various modes were prescribed by Rule 9B for serving the report of Public Analyst on the accused, not even an attempt was made to personally serve the report on the appellant in the present case, after the postal packet was returned. 

On the basis of endorsements of the Postman appearing on the postal envelope containing the report, the High Court had recorded a finding of refusal on the part of the appellant to accept the report, which was erroneous as the endorsements on the postal envelope were not proved by examining the Postman, added the Top Court.

Speaking for the Bench, Justice Oka observed that the High Court has glossed over the mandatory requirement u/s 13(2) of serving a copy of the report on the accused, as the evidence adduced by the prosecution was of mere dispatch of the report. 

Hence, the Apex Court set aside the judgment of the High Court and allowed the appeal.