Supreme Court quashes conviction due to non-compliance with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act: Narayana Prasad Sahu vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (29 October 2021)

Date of the Judgment: 29 October 2021
Judges: Abhay S. Oka, J. and Ajay Rastogi, J.
Can a conviction under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 be upheld if the mandatory procedure of providing the Public Analyst’s report to the accused is not followed? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a recent case, emphasizing the importance of procedural compliance in ensuring fair trial. This case highlights the necessity of serving the Public Analyst’s report to the accused to enable them to exercise their right to challenge the findings by sending the sample to the Central Food Laboratory. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ajay Rastogi, with the opinion authored by Justice Abhay S. Oka.

Case Background

On 16th January 2002, Narayana Prasad Sahu (the appellant) was selling chana daal in a weekly market in Kagpur. A Food Inspector visited the market and asked the appellant to show his license, which he failed to produce. The Food Inspector then purchased 750 grams of chana daal from the appellant. This sample was divided into three parts and sent to the Public Analyst for examination. The Public Analyst’s report indicated that the chana daal was adulterated.

The Judicial Magistrate First Class convicted the appellant on 12th October 2007, sentencing him to six months of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000. The Sessions Court upheld this conviction in appeal. Subsequently, the High Court dismissed the appellant’s revision application on 3rd May 2018.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Judicial Magistrate First Class convicted the appellant, a decision which was upheld by the Sessions Court in appeal. The appellant then filed a revision application before the High Court, which was also dismissed. The High Court concluded that the appellant had refused to accept the copy of the Public Analyst’s report sent by registered post, based on postal endorsements indicating multiple unsuccessful delivery attempts. The appellant then approached the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case revolves around Section 13 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, which deals with the report of the Public Analyst. Specifically, sub-section (2) of Section 13 states:

“(2) On receipt of the report of the result of the analysis under sub-section (1) to the effect that the article of food is adulterated, the Local (Health) Authority shall, after the institution of prosecution against the persons from whom the sample of the article of food was taken and the person, if any, whose name, address and other particulars have been disclosed under section 14A, forward, in such manner as may be prescribed, a copy of the report of the result of the analysis to such person or persons, as the case may be, informing such person or persons that if it is so desired, either or both of them may make an application to the court within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of the copy of the report to get the sample of the article of food kept by the Local (Health) Authority analysed by the Central Food Laboratory”.

This section mandates that after a prosecution is initiated, the Local (Health) Authority must send a copy of the Public Analyst’s report to the person from whom the food sample was taken. This is to inform them of their right to apply to the court within ten days to have the sample analyzed by the Central Food Laboratory.

Rule 9B of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, prescribes the manner of sending the report:

“9B. Local (Health) authority to send report to person concerned –The Local (Health) Authority shall [within a period of ten days] after the institution of prosecution forward a copy of the report of the result of analysis in Form III delivered to him under sub-rule (3) of rule 7, by registered post or by hand, as may be appropriate, to the person from whom the sample of the article was taken by the food inspector, and simultaneously also to the person, if any, whose name, address and other particulars have been disclosed under section 14A of the Act: Provided that where the sample conforms to the provisions of the Act or the rules made thereunder, and no prosecution is intended under sub-section (2), or no action is intended under sub-section (2E) of section 13 of the Act, the Local (Health) Authority shall intimate the result to the Vendor from whom the sample has been taken and also to the person, whose name, address and other particulars have been disclosed under section 14A of the Act, within 10 days from the receipt of the report from the Public Analyst.”

Rule 9B allows for the report to be sent either by registered post or by hand.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant argued that the mandatory provision of sub-section (2) of Section 13 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 was violated as a copy of the Public Analyst’s report was not supplied to him.
• The appellant contended that the right to have the sample analyzed by the Central Food Laboratory was defeated due to non-receipt of the report.
• The appellant submitted that the High Court erred in concluding that he refused to accept the report based on the Postman’s endorsements.
• The appellant relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Vijendra v. State of Uttar Pradesh [(2020) 15 SCC 763], which held that mere dispatch of the report is insufficient and the report must be served on the accused.
• The appellant also cited the Allahabad High Court’s decision in Jameel v. State of U.P. and Ors. [(1999) SCC online Allahabad 1547], to support his argument.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The respondent-State argued that they complied with Rule 9B of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, by sending the report via registered post.
• The respondent submitted that the Postman’s endorsements on the postal packet indicated multiple attempts to deliver the report, and thus a presumption of service should be drawn.
• The respondent contended that the High Court was correct in its finding that the appellant had refused to accept the report.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The core issue before the Supreme Court was whether the mandatory requirement of serving a copy of the Public Analyst’s report to the accused, as stipulated under sub-section (2) of Section 13 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, was complied with.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

Cases

• Vijendra v. State of Uttar Pradesh [(2020) 15 SCC 763] – Supreme Court of India: This case was relied upon by the appellant to argue that mere dispatch of the report is not sufficient compliance with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, and that the report must be served on the accused.
• Jameel v. State of U.P. and Ors. [(1999) SCC online Allahabad 1547] – Allahabad High Court: This case was cited by the appellant to support his contention that the mandatory requirements of Section 13(2) were not met.

Legal Provisions

• Section 13(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954: This provision mandates that the Public Analyst must submit a report of the analysis of any food sample to the Local (Health) Authority.
• Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954: This provision requires the Local (Health) Authority to forward a copy of the Public Analyst’s report to the person from whom the sample was taken, after the institution of prosecution, informing them of their right to apply to the court for analysis by the Central Food Laboratory.
• Rule 9B of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955: This rule prescribes the modes of sending the report to the accused, which includes registered post or by hand.

Judgment

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the mandatory nature of Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, and the need to protect the accused’s right to a fair trial. The Court emphasized that the right to challenge the Public Analyst’s report by having the sample analyzed by the Central Food Laboratory is a crucial safeguard. The Court noted that the prosecution failed to prove the service of the report and that the High Court had erred in presuming refusal based on the Postman’s unproven endorsements.

The Court noted that the prosecution’s evidence only showed dispatch of the report, not actual service, and that the High Court had incorrectly concluded that the appellant refused to accept the report. The court highlighted the importance of the accused’s right to challenge the Public Analyst’s report and that this right would be defeated if the report is not properly served. The Court emphasized the mandatory language of Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, stating that “If a copy of the report of the Public Analyst is not delivered to the accused, his right under sub-section (2) of Section 13 of praying for sending the sample to the Central Food Laboratory will be defeated. Consequently, his right to challenge the report will be defeated. His right to defend himself will be adversely affected.” The Court also reiterated the principle laid down in Vijendra v. State of Uttar Pradesh [(2020) 15 SCC 763], that mere dispatch of the report is insufficient and that the report must be served on the accused. The Court further stated, “On the basis of endorsements of the Postman appearing on the postal envelope containing the report, the High Court has recorded a finding of refusal on the part of the appellant to accept the report. The said finding is obvious erroneous as the endorsements on the postal envelope were not proved by examining the Postman.” The Court also noted that “More than one mode was prescribed by Rule 9B for serving the report of Public Analyst on the accused. In the present case, after the postal packet was returned, not even an attempt was made to personally serve the report on the appellant.”

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court emphasized that mere dispatch of the Public Analyst’s report is not sufficient compliance with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The report must be served on the accused.
• The accused has a right to challenge the Public Analyst’s report by having the sample analyzed by the Central Food Laboratory, and this right is contingent upon proper service of the report.
• Findings of refusal to accept the report cannot be based on unproven postal endorsements. The Postman must be examined to prove the endorsements.
• If the report is not served, the accused’s right to defend himself is adversely affected, and the conviction cannot be sustained.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment and order of the High Court and quashed the conviction of the appellant.

Development of Law

The judgment reinforces the principle that procedural compliance is essential in criminal trials, particularly in cases involving food adulteration. The ratio decidendi of the case is that mere dispatch of the Public Analyst’s report is not sufficient compliance with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, and the report must be served on the accused. This judgment reaffirms the principle laid down in Vijendra v. State of Uttar Pradesh [(2020) 15 SCC 763], and clarifies the importance of actual service of the report to protect the accused’s right to a fair trial.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Narayana Prasad Sahu vs. State of Madhya Pradesh underscores the importance of strict adherence to procedural requirements in cases under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The Court’s emphasis on the mandatory nature of Section 13(2) and the need for actual service of the Public Analyst’s report highlights the judiciary’s commitment to protecting the rights of the accused and ensuring a fair trial. The judgment serves as a reminder that mere dispatch of the report is not enough and that the prosecution must prove that the report was actually served on the accused. The judgment reinforces the principle that procedural compliance is essential in criminal trials, particularly in cases involving food adulteration.

Category

Parent Category: Criminal Law
Child Category: Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954
Child Category: Section 13, Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954
Child Category: Food Adulteration
Child Category: Procedural Compliance in Criminal Trials

FAQ

Q: What is the main issue in the Narayana Prasad Sahu vs. State of Madhya Pradesh case?

A: The main issue was whether the mandatory requirement of serving a copy of the Public Analyst’s report to the accused, as per Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, was complied with.

Q: What did the Supreme Court decide?

A: The Supreme Court quashed the conviction, holding that mere dispatch of the report is not sufficient and the report must be served on the accused to ensure their right to a fair trial and to challenge the report.

Q: What is Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954?

A: Section 13(2) mandates that after a prosecution is initiated, the Local (Health) Authority must send a copy of the Public Analyst’s report to the person from whom the food sample was taken, informing them of their right to apply to the court for analysis by the Central Food Laboratory.

Q: What is the significance of the Public Analyst’s report?

A: The Public Analyst’s report is a crucial piece of evidence in food adulteration cases. The accused has the right to challenge this report by requesting an analysis by the Central Food Laboratory.

Q: What does the judgment mean for food vendors?

A: The judgment emphasizes that authorities must strictly follow the procedure of serving the Public Analyst’s report to food vendors. Failure to do so can lead to the quashing of convictions.

Q: What is the importance of the Postman’s testimony in such cases?

A: The Postman’s testimony is crucial to prove that the report was either served or that the accused refused to accept it. Unproven postal endorsements are not sufficient evidence of refusal.