RSS

Welcome to PesPro

 

06 February 2016

Saturday

Have A Happy Day

This blog attempts to enrich the knowledge of various stake holders in Food chain with  emphasis on world class technologies

Food for thought

Thirukkural – திருக்குறள்

        

அதிகாரம்/Chapter/Adhigaram: நாணுடைமை/Shame/Naanutaimai 102
இயல்/ChapterGroup/Iyal: குடியியல்/Miscellaneous/Kudiyiyal 11
பால்/Section/Paal: பொருட்பால்/Wealth/Porutpaal 2
குறள் 1019
குலஞ்சுடும் கொள்கை பிழைப்பின் நலஞ்சுடும்
நாணின்மை நின்றக் கடை
மு.வ உரை:
ஒருவன் கொள்கை தவறினால் , அத் தவறு அவனுடையக் குடிப் பிறப்பைத் கெடுக்கும், நாணில்லாத தன்மை நிலைப் பெற்றால் நன்மை எல்லாவற்றையும் கெடுக்கும்.
Couplet 1019
‘Twill race consume if right observance fail;
‘Twill every good consume if shamelessness prevail
Explanation
Want of manners injures one’s family; but want of modesty injures one’s character
Transliteration
Kulanjutum Kolkai Pizhaippin Nalanjutum
Naaninmai Nindrak Katai
 
1 Comment

Posted by on April 19, 2013 in Pest Management Training

 

PFA – Gujarat HC – CRA -Food Inspector Vs Nareshkumar Gordhanas Hotvani

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

             CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST ORDER PASSED BY
                     SUBORDINATE COURT) NO. 475 of 2011



            STATE OF GUJARAT - THRO' S A PATEL, FOOD INSPECTOR....Applicant(s)
                                      Versus
             NARESHKUMAR GORDHANDAS HOTVANI & 1....Respondent(s)
         ==========================================================
         Appearance:
         PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Applicant(s) No. 1
         MR DK MODI, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 1 - 2
         MR MD MODI, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 1 - 2
         ==========================================================

                  CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI

                                    Date : 01/02/2016


                                    ORAL JUDGMENT

1. The applicant­ State of Gujarat has preferred this  Revision   Application   challenging   the   order   dated  30.04.2011 passed below Application Exh.84 by learned  Chief   Judicial   Magistrate,   Himmatnagar   in   Criminal  Case No.2783 of 2006, by which the respondents ­accused  have been discharged.

2. Heard learned APP Mr.N.J.Shah for the applicant­ State   and   learned   advocate   Mr.D.K.Modi   for   the  respondents­accused.  

3. Learned   APP   submitted   that   on   04.02.2006,   Food  Inspector   visited   the   shop   of   the   accused   No.1  alongwith   Panch.     At   that   time,   accused   No.1   was  present.  He was selling mints and biscuits etc.  The  Food   Inspector   after   following   procedure,   purchased  three packets of Jesco Glucose biscuits, each of 250  Gram   after   making   payment   and   thereafter,   after  following procedure prescribed under the provision of  The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter  referred   to   as   ‘the   Act’   for   short)   as   well   as   The  Prevention   of   Food   Adulteration   Rules,   1955  (hereinafter   referred   to   as   ‘the   Rules’   for   short)  send   the   samples   to   local   health   authority   for  analysis.  As per the report received from the public  analyst,   the   sample   in   question   was   not   as   per   the  prescribed   standard   and   therefore   after   obtaining  necessary   sanction   from   the   competent   authority,  Criminal  Case   No.2783   of   2006  came   to   be   registered  against   the   respondents­accused.   Learned   APP  thereafter   submitted   that   Trial   Court   conducted   the  trial   and   convicted   the   accused   for   the   offense  punishable under Section 7(1) of the Act and imposed  punishment to remain present in the Court till rising  of   the   Court   and   fine   of   Rs.1,000/­   was   imposed. 

Against the said order, the State preferred Criminal  Appeal   No.1092   of   2010   before   this   Court   for  enhancement of the sentence.   This Court by an order  dated 20.12.2011, quashed and set aside the said order  and remanded the matter back to the Trial Court for  deciding   the   same   on   merits   and   in   accordance   with  law.    Thereafter,   before   the   Trial   Court,   the  respondents­accused   submitted   an   application   Exh.84  under   Section   245(2)   of   the   Code   of   Criminal  Procedure,   1973   and   requested   for   discharging   them. 

The Trial Court by an impugned order, discharged the  respondents ­accused   and   therefore,   this   Revision  Application is preferred.

4. Learned APP mainly contended that once this Court  has remanded the matter back to the Trial Court, the  Trial Court ought to have heard the matter on its own  merits and it was not open for the respondents­accused  to submit an application for discharge of the accused. 

Trial Court wrongly exercised the powers under Section  245   of   the   Code   and   thereby   discharged  the   accused. 

Therefore,   this   Revision   Application   be   allowed   and  the Trial Court be directed to decide the mater on its  own merits.

5. On   the   other   hand,   learned   advocate   Mr.Modi  appearing for the respondents­accused mainly contended  that   the   complainant­Food   Inspector   has   filed   the  complaint after the expiry of the sample in question  and therefore, when this Court has remanded the matter  back to the Trial Court for deciding the same on its  own merits and to decide the same in accordance with  law,   Exh.84   application   was   submitted   by   the  respondents­accused.  In the said application, it was  specifically   contended   that   sample   was   collected   by  the   complainant   Food   Inspector   on   04.02.2006  manufacturing   date   of   the   said   sample/biscuit   was  November   2005   and   the   said   sample   was   best   for   use  before six months from the date of packing.  Thus, the  expiry date of the said sample was six months from the  date   of   packing   i.e.   6   months   from   November   2005. 

Hence, the expiry date of the sample was April, 2006. 

Public   analyst   submitted   his   report   on   08.03.2006. 

The   competent   authority   gave   his   sanction   on  12.07.2006  and   thereafter   the   complainant   filed   the  complaint   on   22.08.2006   before   the   learned   Chief  Judicial Magistrate.  Thus, it is an admitted position  that   the   complaint   was   filed   by   the   Food   Inspector  after   the   expiry   of   the   sample.     Hence,   when   the  complaint   was   filed   before   the   concerned   Magistrate  Court,   self   life   of   the   sample   had   expired.     The  respondents­accused therefore could not request to the  Trial Court for sending the sample to the Central Food  Laboratory   and   therefore,   they   had   lost   the  opportunity for sending the sample to the Central Food  Laboratory.     Thus,   prejudice   is   caused   to   the  respondents­accused.     The   complainant   has   thereby  violated the mandatory provision of Section 13(2) of  the   Act   and   therefore,   the   Trial   Court   has   rightly  discharged   the   accused.   Hence,   no   interference   is  required.     In   support   of   the   aforesaid   contention,  learned advocate Mr.Modi has placed reliance upon the  following decisions:

I. In the case of M/s. Medicamen Biotech Limited v.  Rubina Bose, Drug Inspector, reported in 2008 (7) SCC  II. In the case of State of Haryana v. Unique Farmaid  P. Limited and others, reported in 1992 (2) FAC 399 III. Order   passed   by   this   Court   dated   15.12.2015   in  Criminal   Misc.   Application   No.17597   of   2015   with  Criminal Appeal No.1373 of 2015. 

6. I   have   considered   the   submissions   canvassed   on  behalf of learned advocates appearing for the parties. 

I have also gone through the provision of law relied  upon   by   the   learned   advocates.     I   have   also   gone  through   the   decision   relied   upon   by   the   learned  advocates   for   the   parties.     From   the   record,   it   is  clear that this Court remanded the matter back to the  Trial Court for deciding the same on its own merits  and in accordance with law and therefore, application  Exh.84   was   given   by   the   respondents­accused   under  Section 245(2) of the Code.  It is an undisputed fact   that   sample   was   taken   on   04.02.2006   by   the   Food  Inspector.   Date   of   manufacturing   is   November,   2005. 

Sample   was   best   before   six   months   from   the   date   of  packing.   The said date would expire on April, 2006. 

Admittedly   the   complaint   was   filed   by   the   Food  Inspector   on   22.08.2006  i.e.   after   the  self   life   of  the sample has expired.   Thus, in background of the  aforesaid undisputed facts, provision of law contained  in the Act as well as the decision relied upon by the  learned advocate appearing for the respondents­accused  are required to be seen.

7. Section 13(2) of the Act provides as under:

13. Report of Public Analyst (2) On receipt of the report of the result of the  analysis under sub­section (1) to the effect that  the   article   of   food   is   adulterated,   the   Local  (Health)   Authority   shall,   after   the   institution  of prosecution against the person 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.

 (2A)   When   an   application   is   made   to   the   Court  under   sub­section   (2),   the   Court   shall   require  the Local (Health) Authority to forward the part  or parts of the sample kept by the said Authority  and   upon   such   requisition   being   made,   the   said  Authority shall forward the part or parts of the  sample to the Court within a period of five days  from the date of receipt of such requisition.

(2B)   On   receipt   of   the   part   or   parts   of   the  sample   from   the   Local   (Health)   Authority   under  subsection (2A), the Court shall first ascertain  that the mark and seal or fastening as provided  in   clause   (b)   of   sub­section   (1)   of   section   11  arc intact and the signature or thumb impression,  as   the   case   may   be,   is   not tampered   with,   and  dispatch the part or, as the case may be, one of the parts of the sample under its  own seal to the  Director of the Central Food Laboratory who shall  thereupon send a certificate to the Court in the  prescribed form within one month from the date of  receipt of the part of the sample specifying the  result of the analysis.

(2C) Where two parts of the sample have been sent  to the Court and of one part of the sample has  been   sent   by   the   Court   to   the   Director   of   the  Central   Food   Laboratory   under   sub­section   (2B)  the Court shall, as soon as practicable, return  the   remaining   part   to   the   Local   (Health)  Authority   and   that   Authority   shall   destroy   that  part after the certificate from the Director of  the Central Food Laboratory has been received by  the Court :

Provided that where the part of the sample sent  by the Court to the Director of the Central Food  Laboratory   is   lost   or   damaged,   the   Court   shall  require   the   Local   (Health)   Authority   to   forward  the part of the sample,  if any, retained by it to  the Court and on receipt thereof, the Court shall  proceed   in   the   manner   provided   in   sub­section  (2B).

(2D) Until the receipt of the certificate of the  result of the analysis from the Director of the   Central   Food   Laboratory,   the   Court   shall   not  continue   with   the   proceedings   pending   before   it  in relation to the prosecution.

(2E) If, after considering the report, if any, of  the   food   inspector   or   otherwise,   the   Local  (Health)   Authority   is   of   the   opinion   that   the  report delivered by the public analyst under sub­ section   (1)   is   erroneous,   the   said   Authority  shall forward one of the parts of the sample kept  by   it   to   any   other   public   analyst   for   analysis  and if the report of the result of the analysis  of that part of the sample by that other public  analyst is to the effect that the article of food  is adulterated the provisions of sub­sections (2)  to (2D) shall, so far as may be, apply.].

8. Similar type of provision is contained in Section  24 of Insecticide Act, 1963, which reads as under:

24. Report of Insecticide Analyst

1.   The   Insecticide   Analyst   to   whom   a   sample   of  any   insecticide   has   been   submitted   for   test   or  analysis under sub­section (6) of Sec. 22, shall,  within   a   period   of   sixty   days,   delivery   to   the  Insecticide   Inspector   submitting   it   a   signed  report in duplicate in the prescribed form.

2.   The   Insecticide   Inspector   on   receipt   thereof  shall   deliver   one   copy   of   the   report   to   the  person from whom the sample was taken and shall  retain the other copy for use in any prosecution  in respect of the sample.

3. Any document purporting to be a report signed  by   an   Insecticide   Analyst   shall   be   evidence   of  facts stated therein, and such evidence shall be  conclusive unless the person from whom the sample  was   taken   has   within   twenty­eight   days   of   the  receipt   of   a   copy   of   the   report   notified   in  writing   the   Insecticide Inspector   or   the   Court  before   which   any   proceeding   in   respect   of   the  sample   are   pending   that   he   intends   to   adduce evidence in contravention of the report.

4. Unless the sample has already been tested or  analyzed in the Central Insecticides Laboratory,  where a person has under sub­section (3) notified  his   intention   of   adducing   evidence   in  contravention of the insecticide analysts report  the   Court   may,   of   its   own   motion   or   its  discretion   at   the   request   either   of   the  complainant or of the accused, cause the sample  of the insecticide  produced before the Magistrate  under sub­section (6) of Sec. 22 to be sent for  test or analysis to the laboratory, which shall  make the test or analysis and report in writing  signed   by,   or   under   the   authority   of,   the  Director   of   Central Insecticides   Laboratory   the  result   thereof,   and   such   report   shall   be conclusive evidence of the  facts stated therein.

5.   The   cost   of   a   test   or   analysis   made   by   the  Central Insecticides Laboratory under subsection  (4)   shall   be   paid   by   the   complainant   or   the  accused as the Court shall direct.

9. Similar provision is also contained in Section 25  of Drugs and Cosmetics Act of 1940.  Section 25 of the  said Act provides as under:

25. Reports of Government Analysts (1)   The   Government   Analyst   to   whom   a   sample   of  any drug a [or cosmetic] has been submitted for  test or analysis under sub­section (4) of section  23, shall deliver to the Inspector submitting it  a signed report in triplicate in the prescribed  form.

(2)   The   Inspector   on   receipt   thereof   shall  deliver one copy of the report to the person from  whom the sample was taken b [and another copy to  the person, if any, whose name, address and other  particulars   have   been   disclosed   under   section  18A], and shall retain the third copy for use in any prosecution in respect of the sample.

(3) Any document purporting to be a report signed  by a Government Analyst under this Chapter shall  be evidence of the facts stated therein, and such  evidence   shall   be   conclusive   unless   the   person  from whom the sample was taken b [or the person  whose   name,   address   and   other   particulars   have  been   disclosed   under   section   18A]   has,   within  twenty­eight days of the receipt of a copy of the  report, notified in writing the Inspector or the  Court before which any proceedings in respect of  the sample are pending that he intends to adduce  evidence in controversion of the report.

(4) Unless the sample has already been tested or  analysed in the Central Drugs Laboratory, where a  person   has   under   sub­section   (3)   notified   his  intention of adducing evidence in a controversion  of a Government Analyst’s report, the Court may,  of   its   own   motion   or   in   its   discretion   at   the  request either of the complainant or the accused,  cause   the   sample   of   the   drug   a   [or   cosmetic]  produced before the Magistrate under sub­section  (4) of Section 23 to be sent for test or analysis  to the said Laboratory, which shall make the test  or analysis and report in writing signed by, or  under   the   authority of,   the   Director   of   the  Central Drugs Laboratory the result thereof, and  such report shall be  conclusive  evidence of the  facts stated therein.

(5) The cost of a test or analysis made by the  Central   Drugs   Laboratory   under   sub­section   (4)  shall   be   paid   by   the   complainant   or   accused   as  the Court shall direct.

10. Thus,   all   the   aforesaid   provisions   are  pari  materia and therefore decision rendered by the Hon’ble  Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana (supra)  as   well   as   in   the   case   of   M/s.   Medicamen   Biotech  HC-NIC Page 11 of 17 Created On Thu Feb 04 01:54:00 IST 2016 R/CR.RA/475/2011 JUDGMENT Limited   (supra)   are   applicable   to   the   facts   of   the  present case.

11. In   the   case   of   M/s.   Medicamen   Biotech   Limited  (supra),   the   Hon’ble   Supreme   Court   observed   in  paragraph No.10 as under:

“10. We   find   that   this   judgment   helps   the  case of the appellant rather than that of the   respondent   because   in   spite   of   two   communications   from   the   appellant   that   it  intended to adduce evidence to controvert the   facts given in the report of the Government  Analyst,   the   fourth   sample   with   the  Magistrate had not been sent for re­analysis.   The   observations   in   Amery   Pharmaceuticals’s  case   (supra)   are   also   to   the   same   effect. 

We   find   that   the   aforesaid   interpretation  supports the case of the appellants inasmuch  they had been deprived of the right to have  the   fourth   sample   tested   from   the   Central  Drugs Laboratory.   It is also clear that the   complaint had been filed on the 2nd July 2002   which  is  about  a month  short  of the  expiry  date of the drug and as such had the accused  appellant appeared before the Magistrate even  on 2nd July 2002 it would have been well nigh   impossible   to   get   the   sample   tested   before   its expiry.    In the affidavit  filed  to  the  petition   by   Dr.   D.   Rao,   Deputy   Drugs  Controller,   and   in   arguments   before   us,   it   has been repeatedly stressed that the delay  in sending of the sample to the Central Drugs   Laboratory had occurred as the appellant had  avoided service of summons on it till 9th May   2005.  This is begging the question.  We find   that  there  is no explanation  as to why  the  complaint itself had been filed about a month   before the  expiry  of  the shelf life  of  the  drug   and   concededly   the   filing   of   the  complaint   had   nothing   to   do   with   the  appearance of the accused in response to the notices which were to be issued by the Court   after   the   complaint   had   been   filed.  Likewise,   we   observe   that   the   requests   for   retesting of the  drug had  been made  by  the  appellant   in   August/September   2001   as   would  be clear from the facts already given above  and there is absolutely no reason as to why  the   complaint   could   not   have   been   filed  earlier   and   the   fourth   sample   sent   for   retesting   well   within   time.   We   are,  therefore, of the opinion that the facts of  the   case   suggest   that   the   appellants   have  been   deprived   of   a   valuable   right   under  Section 25(3) and 25(4) of the Act which must   necessitate   the   quashing   of   the   proceedings  against them.”  

12. In case of Unique Farmaid P. Limited (supra), the  Hon’ble Supreme Court observed in paragraphs No.11 and  12 as under:

“11. Sub­section   (1)   of   Section   30   which  appears   to   be   relevant   only   prescribes   in  effect that ignorance would be of no defence  but   that   does   not   mean   that   if   there   are   contraventions of other mandatory provisions  of   the   Act,   the   accused   have   no   remedy.  Procedure   for   testing   the   sample   is  prescribed   and   if   it   is   contravened   to   the  prejudice   of   the   accused,   he   certainly   has   right   to   seek   dismissal   of   the   complaint. 

There cannot be two opinions about that. Then   in   order   to   safeguard   the   right   of   the  accused   to   have   the   sample   tested   from   Central   Insecticides   Laboratory,   it   is  incumbent   on   the   prosecution   to   file   the   complaint expeditiously so that the right of  the accused is not lost. In the present case,   by   the   time   the   respondents   were   asked   to  appear before the Court, expiry date of the  insecticide was already over and sending of  sample to the Central Insecticides Laboratory  at   that   late   stage   would   be   of   no   consequence.   This   issue   is   no   longer   res   integra. In The State of Punjab v. National  Organic   Chemical   Industries   Ltd.,   JT   (1996)  10   SC   480   this   Court   in   somewhat   similar  circumstances   said   that   the   procedure   laid  down under Section 24 of the Act deprived the   accused to have sample tested by the Central  Insecticides   Laboratory   and   adduce   evidence  of the report so given in his defence. This  Court   stressed   the   need   to   lodge   the  complaint   with   utmost   dispatch   so   that   the   accused   may   opt   to   avail   the   statutory   defence. The Court held that the accused had  been deprived of a valuable right statutorily   available to him. On this view of the matter,   the   court   did   not   allow   the   criminal  complaint to proceed against the accused. We  have cases under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act,   1940 and the Prevention of Food Adulteration  Act, 1954 involving the same   question.   In   this   connection   reference  be made to decisions of this Court in State  of Haryana v. Brij Lal Mittal & Ors., [1998]   5 SCC 343 under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act,   1940; Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ghisa   Ram, AIR (1967) SC 970; Chetumal v. State of   Madhya Pradesh  & Anr.,  [1981]  3 SCC  72  and Calcutta Municipal Corporation v. Pawan Kumar  Saraf & Anr., [1999] 2 SCC 400 all under the  Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.

12. It   cannot   be   gainsaid,   therefore,   that  the   respondents   in   these   appeals   have   been   deprived of their valuable right to have the  sample   tested   from   the   Central   Insecticides  Laboratory under sub­ section (4) of Section  24   of   the   Act.   Under   sub­section   (3)   of  Section 24 report signed by the Insecticide  analyst shall be evidence of the facts stated   therein   and   shall   be   conclusive   evidence  against   the   accused   only   if   the   accused   do  not,   within   28   days   of   the   receipt   of   the   report, notify in writing to the Insecticides   Inspector   or   the   Court   before   which  proceedings are pending that they intend to  adduce evidence to controvert the report.  the   present   cases   Insecticide   Inspector   was  notified that the accused intended to adduce  evidence   to   controvert   the   report.   By   the  time the matter reached the court, shelf life   of   the   sample   had   already   expired   and   no  purpose would have been served informing the  court of such an intention. The report of the   Insecticide   Analyst   was,   therefore,   not  conclusive.   A   valuable   right   had   been  conferred on the accused to have the sample   tested   from   the   Central   Insecticides  Laboratory   and   in   the   circumstances   of   the   case   accused   have   been   deprived   of   that  right,   thus,   prejudicing   them   in   their  defence.”

13. This Court in the order dated 15.12.2015, passed  in   Criminal   Misc.   Application   No.17597   of   2015,   in  similar type of facts, observed in paragraphs No.3 and  4 as under:

“3.   Having   regard   to   the   facts   and  circumstances discussed above, this Court is   at pains to express the displeasure qua the  manner in which the case has been dealt with  by the Food Inspector and other authorities  contemplated   under   the   PFA   Act.   The   sample  was taken on 01/06/2010 which prescribed the  date   of   manufacture   as   29/05/2010   and   the  life   for   consumption   of   the   product   was   a  period   of   three   months   thereof   i.e.   28/08/2010.   The   said   sample   was   promptly  sent   to   the   Local   Health   Authority,   which  received   it   on   07/06/2010   for   analysis.  Unfortunately,   without   being   conscious   to  the date of expiry of the product, the Local  Health   Authority   consumed   about   a   month  before  submitting  its  report  on  07/07/2010. 

If   prompt   action   was   taken   even   on  07/07/2010, the rest of the procedure could  have   been   completed   on   priority,   but   that  was   not   done   even   as   the   Food   Inspector  consumed   one   more   month   before   deciding   to  secure the information of the firm involved  in   the   case   under   Section   14A   of   the   PFA   Act.   He   received   such   information   on  17/09/2010 and by that date, the product had  already   expired.   That   date   itself   ensured   the impossibility of compliance with Section   13   (2)   of   the   PFA   Act;   inasmuch   as,   as  discussed   above,   even   according   to   the   manufacturer,   it   was   not   good   for  consumption and thus it was prone to natural  hazards   and   risks   and   would   not   in   all  possibility   pass   the   prescribed   test   under  the   Act.   However,   the   Food   Inspector   again  consumed   about   a   month   for   the   purpose   of  moving  the  competent  authority  for   sanction  which was granted only after about one and a  half month by the sanctioning authority. 22  days   more   were   consumed   by   the   Food  Inspector   before   the   complaint   came   to   be  lodged on 23/12/2010.

4.   For   the   foregoing   reasons,   the  application for leave deserves rejection and   is accordingly rejected. Rule is discharged.   Consequently,   the   appeal   must   fail   and   is  dismissed.”   

14. Keeping in mind the aforesaid provisions of law  and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and  this Court, this Court is of the opinion that, in the  present case when the complainant Food Inspector has  filed the complaint after the expiry of self life of  the sample in question, the respondents­accused have  lost their valuable right of sending the sample to the  Central Food Laboratory and therefore, the complainant  Food Inspector has violated the mandatory provision of  the Act.  Hence, the Trial Court has not committed any  error   while   discharging   the   respondents­accused   and  therefore,   no   interference   is   required   in   this  Revision Application.

15. Accordingly, this application is dismissed.  Rule  is discharged.      

(VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J.)

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on February 6, 2016 in Court cases

 

Consumer alert – Patanjali Ayurved Limited — Sand/soil powder observed in whole wheat aata while eating chapati

Food Business Operator :Patanjali Ayurved ltd.

Product ; Atta

Sand/soil powder observed in whole wheat aata while eating chapati.

Issue ; Sand / Soil powder in Atta

Consumer complaint :

I have purchased Whole wheat aata (5KG) from one of Patanjali store in Beeramguda, RC Puram, Hyderabad on Tuesday 02 Feb 2016.

Batch No. DF0079
Mfg Date: 20/12/2015

After openeing of pack we made chapati from it. We have observed sand or soil powder in Atta while eating of that chapatis. This should not happened with well known ayurvedic company. I think from now onwards I should trust on Patanjali Ayurvedic company.

This should be resolved as early as possible or I will post this complaint on social medias with images. You can keep contact on rajendra.pagdal@gmail.com.

 rajendra3282 on Feb 5, 2016, as posted in http://www.consumercomplaints.in

Complaint Status

[Feb 05, 2016] Patanjali Ayurved customer support has been notified about the posted complaint.

Satisfactory rating :

Complaints : 102, Responses : 0, Resolved : 2

CONSUMERS CAN ALSO FILE COMPLAINTS WITH DISTRICT DESIGNATED OFFICER (FOOD SAFETY)

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on February 6, 2016 in Consumer Awareness

 

FDA SEIZES OIL, GHEE WORTH RS 2 CRORE OVER HIGH NICKEL CONTENT

Nickel is used as a catalyst in oil, but may prove to be carcinogenic if found in larger quantities

The Pune Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has seized edible oil and Vanaspati ghee worth over Rs 2 crore, manufactured by the Cargill India Pvt Ltd, after tests revealed that the products had nickel content that was more than the permissible limit.

The company, with its headquarters in Gurgaon, Haryana, has a branch in Daund district, wherein its popular products, Gemini sunflower oil and Vanaspati ghee, are manufactured. However, both products were found to have violated norms.

Confirming the same, FDA assistant commissioner SB Naragude said, “After a source shared information about Cargill having violated norms of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, we immediately collected samples of its products. Upon running tests on these, we found a high level of nickel in them, which was double the permissible amounts. This is extremely harmful to the human body.”

Elaborating more on the ill effects of high consumption of nickel, Naragude said, “High nickel content can lead to many illnesses, a higher chance of developing various forms of cancer like lungs, nose, larynx and so on. It may also lead to allergic reactions and rashes. Among the products we tested, we found nickel content had risen to an extremely high level. Nickel is used as a catalyst in oil, but at 1.5 ppm, we found that it was nearly double the limits permitted by the World Health Organisation. Seeing this adulteration in oil and ghee, we seized all products they had, worth Rs 2 crore in all. We have communicated this to the company and are expecting their response. Meanwhile, we are also in the process of raiding other food companies like Wipro as we have received certain complaints against them as well.”

When contacted, Ganesh Kulkarni, national quality head, Cargill India Pvt Ltd, said, “FDA has held our products. However, our products fulfil all Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) regulations and are regularly tested in accredited labs. We take food safety very seriously and are working with the authorities to understand their concerns.”

Pune Mirror

 

 

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on February 5, 2016 in Enforcement

 

PFA – Gujarat HC – CRA -BABULAL DHARAMSHIBHAI PATEL Vs STATE OF GUJARAT – Curd sample fails – Analyst not examined -reg



                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                  CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 364 of 2007
                                           With
                   CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 365 of 2007
         

         ==========================================================
                      BABULAL DHARAMSHIBHAI PATEL....Applicant(s)
                                      Versus
                        STATE OF GUJARAT & 1....Respondent(s)
         ==========================================================
         Appearance:
         MR DK MODI, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1
         MR MD MODI, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1
         MR HRIDAY BUCH, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2
         MR NJ SHAH, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
         ==========================================================

                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI

                          Date : 01/02/2016


                        COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT

1. As both the applications arise out of a common judgment and order, they are disposed off by this common judgment.

2. Criminal Revision Application No.364 of 2007 is filed by the applicant-accused against the order dated 26.6.2007 passed by the Sessions Court in Criminal Appeal No.2 of 1995. The applicant has also prayed that order dated 24.2.1995 passed by learned J.M.F.C. (Municipal Corporation), Rajkot in Criminal Case No.665 of 1995 be quashed and set aside whereas Criminal Revision Application No.365 of 2007 is filed against the order dated 26.6.2007 passed below Exh.37 by the learned Sessions Court, Rajkot in Criminal Revision Application No.24 of 1997.

3. Heard learned advocate Mr.D.K.Modi appearing for the applicant in both the applications, learned APP Mr.Shah for respondent no.1-State of Gujarat and learned advocate Mr.Buch, learned advocate for respondent no.2- original complainant.

4. The facts in nutshell are as under:

4.1 The Food Inspector of Rajkot Municipal Corporation visited the shop of the petitioner on  3.7.1986 and collected the sample of curd for the purpose of analysis. After following the procedure laid down in the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act,1954 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act’ for the sake of brevity) and Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules,1955 (hereinafter referred to as `the Rules’ for the sake of brevity), the Food Inspector sent the sample for necessary testing to the concerned Laboratory. When the report of the public analyst was received, it was revealed that the sample was having milk fat of 2.65% instead of minimum 6% as per PFA limit. The Food Inspector, therefore, after obtaining necessary sanction, filed the complaint against the applicant-accused. During the course of the trial, the deposition of Food Inspector Ashwin Acharya was recorded vide Exh.52, deposition of Panch Bhupatbhai Maganlal Mehta was recorded at Exh.101 whereas deposition of Akbar Osman Rathod was recorded vide Exh.105. The report of the public analyst is produced vide Exh.64. After considering the documentary as well as oral evidence on record, the trial Court convicted the applicant-accused for the offence punishable under Section 7(1) read with Section 16(1)(a) of the Act and sentenced him to suffer three months rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/- was imposed, in default, he was ordered to suffer two months simple imprisonment.

The said order was passed by the learned trial Court on 24.2.1995. Against the said order, the applicant preferred Criminal Appeal No.2 of 1995 whereas the present respondent no.2-original complainant preferred Criminal Revision Application No.24 of 1997. The complainant preferred the revision application for enhancement of the sentence on the ground that the trial Court has imposed the sentence less than the minimum provided under the Act. The appellate Court, by common judgment and order dated 26.6.2007, dismissed the Criminal Appeal No.2 of 1995 preferred by the present applicant whereas the Criminal Revision Application No.24 of 1997 preferred by the respondent no.2-original complainant was allowed and thereby sentence imposed by the learned trial Court has been enhanced from three months to six months rigorous imprisonment. Thus, as observed hereinabove, the applicant has challenged the said common judgment against the dismissal of his appeal and the against the order of enhancement of the sentence imposed by the Sessions Court.

5. Learned advocate Mr.Modi appearing for the applicant-accused has mainly contended that the prosecution has failed to establish that alleged sample was collected after stirring the whole bulk of the curd which was lying in a big  utensil and, therefore, the complainant has not complied with the mandatory requirement of the law laid down by this Court and the procedure prescribed under the Rules. In support of the aforesaid contention, learned advocate Mr.Modi has placed reliance upon the order dated 30.6.2006 passed by this Court in Criminal Appeal No.377 of 2004. In the said case, this Court confirmed the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court wherein it has been observed and recorded that the food article like curd is required to be taken after giving a vertical cut to the entire quantity. In the said case, the food article i.e. the curd was not collected after giving a vertical cut from the entire quantity and, therefore, the deficiency in the fat content was noticed as it did not represent the entire quantity for sale. It was, therefore, observed by this Court that if the food sample was taken after giving a vertical cut, then the result would have been otherwise. This Court, further observed that the process of churning, though not mandatory, yet, on certain food articles, was required to be observed so as to make the entire quantity homogeneous for reflecting its true quality. The same was absent.

6. Thus, relying upon the said observation, learned advocate Mr.Modi contended that in the  present case, the Food Inspector has failed to observe the aforesaid procedure while collecting the sample and, therefore, the trial Court ought to have acquitted the applicant-accused and, therefore, the order passed by the appellate Court is also required to be quashed and set aside.

7. Learned advocate Mr.Modi, thereafter, contended that public analyst was not examined by the prosecution and the case of the prosecution is based on the report given by the public analyst. The said report is produced vide Exh.64. He further contended that even the said report did not mention about the method or the test applied by the public analyst while analyzing the sample in question and, therefore, in absence of details about the method adopted or the test applied during the course of the analysis, the trial Court ought to have discarded the said report and, therefore, the impugned orders passed by both the Courts below be quashed and set aside. In support of the said contention, learned advocate for the applicant has placed reliance upon the decision rendered by this Court in the case of State of Gujarat V/s Shantaben w/o Bhoi Dhulabhai Devabhai reported in 1964 GLR 578, order dated 8.1.2015 passed by the this Court in Criminal Revision Application No.599 of 2005, decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mohd.Hanif Shaikh Ibrahim V/s State of Gujarat reported in 1994(2) PFA 446 and the order dated 20.1.2016 passed by this Court in Criminal Revision Application No.192 of 2005.

8. Learned advocate for the applicant thereafter contended that even if the contention of law and undisputed facts with regard to non- compliance of mandatory provision of the rules are not raised before the trial Court or the appellate Court, such contention can be taken in revision application before this Court if the same is going to the root of the matter. In support of the said contention, learned advocate has placed reliance upon the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Gujarat V/s Keshavlal Kalidas Patel reported in 1981 Cr.L.J.551 and the order dated 20.1.2016 passed by this Court in Criminal Revision Application No.192 of 2005.

9. Learned advocate for the applicant, therefore, urged that both these revision applications be allowed and the impugned orders be quashed and set aside.

10. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr.Buch appearing for the original complainant has mainly submitted that the trial Court has passed the order of conviction after considering the oral as well as documentary evidence produced on record. However, the trial Court has imposed the sentence below the minimum prescribed under the Act and, therefore, the complainant filed revision application for enhancement of the sentence. The appellate Court has also, after considering the material produced on record, rightly dismissed the appeal preferred by the applicant-accused and allowed the revision application filed by the complainant and thereby enhanced the sentence from three months to six months and thereby the appellate Court has not committed any illegality. He further contended that the Food Inspector had violated the procedure prescribed under the Rules and when the report of the public analyst disclosed the fact that the sample collected from the shop of the applicant-accused was not in accordance with the prescribed limit and, therefore, when there are two concurrent finding of facts, this Court may not entertain this revision application. Scope of interference in revision application is limited and, therefore, both these applications are dismissed.

11. Learned APP Mr.Shah has also supported the submissions canvassed on behalf of respondent no.2-original complainant.

12. I have considered the submissions canvassed on behalf of learned advocate appearing for the parties. I have also gone through the record and proceedings called for from the trial Court. I have also gone through the provisions of law relied upon by the learned advocates for the parties as well as the decisions relied by learned advocate for the applicant.

13. From the record, it is revealed that the complainant has relied upon the report submitted by the public analyst. The same is produced vide Exh.64. However, if the said report is carefully examined, it is clear that the public analyst has not at all mentioned about the method of the test used at the time of analysis of the sample in question. Even public analyst who has given the said report is not examined by the prosecution. Therefore, the method or the test adopted by the public analyst at the time of analyzing the sample in question has not come on record. This Court, in similar type of facts and circumstances of the case, after considering the form no.III (Rule 7(3) of the Rules) held in Criminal Revision Application No.192 of 2005 that when the methodology adopted by the public analyst while analyzing the the sample in question was not at  all placed before the trial Court by producing oral as well as documentary evidence, in absence of such details the trial Court has committed an error by convicting the accused for the alleged offence. The relevant observation of this Court in the aforesaid decision are in paragraphs 8,9,13,14 and 16 which read as under:

“8. I have considered the submissions canvassed on behalf of the learned advocates for the parties. I have also gone through the material produced on record as well as the Record and Proceedings. From the record it emerges that while taking the sample from the premises of the applicant – accused, the complainant, Food Inspector, has followed the procedure prescribed under the Act and the Rules. Before filing the complaint, sanction from the competent authority was also obtained by him. However, the prosecution – complainant has relied upon the report submitted by the Public Analyst which is produced vide Exh.23. If the said report is carefully perused, it is clear that the report was submitted by the Public Analyst in prescribed form No.III (Rule 7(3) of the Rules) provided under the Rules. As per the said report, 12.92% of total ash was found instead of maximum 9% permissible under the Act and the Rules and simply relying upon the said report, the prosecution was launched against the applicant accused. On careful examination of the said report, it is further revealed that the said report is not as per the prescribed form and detail with regard to name of method of test used is missing in the said report. Form III prescribed under the Rules provides as under:

“[FORM III [See rule 7(3)] [REPORT BY THE PUBLIC ANALYST] Report No……………

HC-NIC Page 10 of 15 Created On Wed Feb 03 02:50:36 IST 2016 R/CR.RA/364/2007 JUDGMENT Certify that I,……………………………………………..(name of the Public Analyst)……….. duly appointed as Public Analyst under the provision of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, for……………… (name of the local area)…………….received from**…………a sample of………….. bearing Code No. and Serial No………………….of Local (Health) Authority on…………………………… (Date of receipt of sample) …………………….for analysis.

The condition of seals on the container and the outer covering on receipt was as follows:- …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

I found the sample to be……………..category of the food sample)…………………………falling under item No……………of *Appendix B of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955/*proprietary food. The sample* was in condition fit for analysis and has been analysed on…………..(Give Date of starting and completion of analysis)………….and the result of its analysis is given below/*was not in a condition fit for analysis for the reason given below:-

Reasons:-

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………… Analysis Report:-

(i) Sample Description:-

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………

(ii) Physical Appearance:-

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………

(iii) Label:-

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………

Serial Quality Name of Result Prescribed Standards No. Characteristics Method of as per:-

test used

(a) Item A- of 1 Appendix ‘B’

(b) As per label 3 declaration for HC-NIC Page 11 of 15 Created On Wed Feb 03 02:50:36 IST 2016 R/CR.RA/364/2007 JUDGMENT 4 proprietary foods 5 (c) As per provisions of the Act and Rules, for both above.

Opinion*** Signed this……………..day of…………..20…………… (Signature) Public Analyst (Seal) Address………………………………………………..

*Strike out whichever is not applicable.

**Give details of the senders.

***When opinions and interpretations are included, document the basis upon which the opinions/interpretation have been made.”

——————-

9. Thus, name of method of test used is not at all stated by the Public Analyst in the report produced vide Exh.23. Thus, in absence of the details of procedure followed by the Public Analyst while analyzing the sample in question, it is not proper for the Trial Court to convict the applicant – accused for the alleged offence.

13. In view of the aforesaid decisions rendered by this Court, I am of the opinion that the methodology adopted by the Public Analyst while analyzing the sample in question was not at all placed before the Trial Court by producing oral as well as documentary evidence and therefore in absence of such details, Trial Court has committed an error by convicting the applicant – accused for the alleged offence. Similarly, the Appellate Court has also ignored the aforesaid important aspect of the matter while dismissing the appeal filed by the applicant.

14. It is true that such contention was not taken before the Courts below. However, law point can be raised at any point of time and in the present case it is an undisputed fact that in the report Exh.23 details with regard to methodology adopted by the Public Analyst is not stated which is required as per the prescribed form No.III under the Rules. Thus, when said fact goes to the root of the matter, benefit of doubt is required to be given to the applicant – accused. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rabindra Sahu (supra) has observed and held in para 3 as under:

“3. It is not in dispute that Rule 18 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules is mandatory in character. If it is mandatory, the procedure laid down therefor was required to be complied with for sustaining the judgment of conviction. If on the basis of the materials on record, the High Court could come to a finding that the provisions therefor had not been complied with, we are of the opinion that the High Court was not precluded from going into the said contention only because the same had not been raised before the Trial Court or before the Appellate Court.”

16. Thus, keeping in mind the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as this Court, this Court is conscious about its limitation of exercise of revisional jurisdiction and normally in case of concurrent finding of fact the Revisional Court would be slow in interfering. However, as discussed hereinabove, important detail is missing in the report of the Public Analyst and therefore the benefit of doubt is required to be given to the applicant-accused. Accordingly, this application is allowed. The impugned order dated 29.02.2000 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ahmedabad (Rural) in Criminal Case No.870 of 1993 as well as the order dated 15.02.2005 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) passed in Criminal Appeal No.8 of 2000, are hereby quashed and set aside. Applicant is ordered to be acquitted of the charges levelled against him. Rule is made absolute. R & P be sent back to the learned Trial Court forthwith

14. Thus, as discussed hereinabove, in the present case, it is an undisputed fact that public analyst is not examined nor there is any reference in the report Exh.64 about the method adopted by the public analyst while analyzing the sample in question and, therefore, it is in violation of prescribed Form no.III(Rule 7(3) of the Rules). Thus, there is a violation of the mandatory provisions of the Rules and, therefore, the trial Court has committed an error while relying on such report. The appellate Court has also failed to consider the said important aspect of the matter and, therefore, even if such undisputed questions of fact and law is raised for the first time before this Court in revision application, in view of the aforesaid decision, the same can be taken into consideration by this Court.

15. Thus, keeping in mind the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as this Court, this Court is conscious about its limitation of exercise of revisional jurisdiction and normally in case of concurrent findings of fact, revisional Court would be slow in interfering. However, in view of the discussion made hereinabove, when the important detail is missing in the report of the public analyst, the benefit of doubt is required to be given to the HC-NIC Page 14 of 15 Created On Wed Feb 03 02:50:36 IST 2016 R/CR.RA/364/2007 JUDGMENT applicant-accused. Accordingly, both these applications are allowed. The common judgment and order dated 26.6.2007 passed by the Sessions Court in Criminal Appeal No.2 of 1995 and Criminal Revision Application No.24 of 1997 is quashed and set aside and the order dated 24.2.1995 passed by learned J.M.F.C. (Municipal Corporation), Rajkot in Criminal Case No.665 of 1995 is also quashed and set aside. The applicant-accused is ordered to be acquitted of the charges levelled against him. Rule is made absolute. R & P be sent back to the trial Court forthwith.

(VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J.)

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on February 5, 2016 in Court cases

 

Food Safety Enforcement News – India updates (05-02-16)

ANDHRA PRADESH

J & K

FBOs to renew their licenses, registration by March 1

Srinagar, Feb 4 (UNI)

All the Food Business Operators (FBOs) in the Jammu and Kashmir have been directed to apply for renewal of their Licenses and Registrations by March 1, an official spokesman said today.
He said this was necessary in view of the commitment of the State Government with the Food Safety & Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) to introduce Food Licensing and Registration System (FLRS) in the State.
The intending and all existing FBOs can exercise an opportunity to upload their application for renewal or grant of licenses and registration through online system

TAMILNADU

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on February 5, 2016 in Enforcement

 

Consumer alert – Cadbury India — Spoiled chocolate with fungus

Food Business Operator :  Mondelez India / Cadbury India (Manufacturer)

Place : Mumbai City

Product ; Cadbury dairy Milk 

Issue : Spoiled chocolate with fungus 

Spoiled chocolate with fungus

Consumer complaint :

Hello,
Yesterday i.e on 2nd of feb 2016 i bought a cadbury dairymilk of rs 25. though money is never a concern but i found disgusting reason to complain about. After giving it to my cousin, she complained me about foul smell from the cadbury. When I saw it, it was already broken in pieces and had fungus all over. I am very particular about the packaging date and expiry date. So I always check it before buying. The packaging was 08/2015. And the code written here is- K50828. I really expect to look at the complains. I have just gone through this forum and saw many complains same as mine. Is cadbury compromising with its quality?

Contact details. Pritija. Y
Email id- pritija333@yahoo.in as posted in http://www.consumercomplaints.in

Mondelez India Foods / Cadbury India Customer Care‘s Response, Feb 03, 2016

Dear Pritija,

Thank you for contacting us. To address your concern, our consumer cell will be contacting you.

Thank you,

Consumer Service Cell, Mondelez India Foods Private Limited (formerly Cadbury India Ltd

CONSUMERS CAN ALSO FILE COMPLAINT WITH DISTRICT DESIGNATED OFFICER (FOOD SAFETY) FOR REGULATORY ACTION

 

 

 

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on February 5, 2016 in Consumer Awareness

 

Consumer alert – Karachi Bakery — Biscuits with worms inside it even before expiry

Food Business Operator : Karachi Bakery , Besantnagar, Chennai

Product : biscuits 

Biscuits with worm inside it even before expiry

Issue ; Worm inside biscuit pack 

Biscuits with worm inside it even before expiryBiscuits with worm inside it even before expiry

Consumer complaint :

I purchased 2 packets of Karachi biscuits from Besant Nagar chennai in Dec 2015. when i opened it in January 2016, it has bad smell and worms inside it and the expiry date was well ahead of January. i put my concern on FB and twitter. finally someone from their management reached me out bearing mobile number : 8790103456 . they promised to ship me fresh packets to my Chennai address . i keep checking with them but they are cold to response. they claim to be In line with USPH, HACCP and ISO standards, periodical audit are conducted and quality tests are constantly monitored.

Address Nampally, Mozzamjahi Market Hyderabad Telangana, India P: +91 40 6666 0909 / 6641 8506

pulbaj on Feb 3, 2016, as posted in http://www.consumercomplaints.in

Complaint Status

[Feb 03, 2016] Karachi Bakery customer support has been notified about the posted complaint.

Satisfactory rating ;

Complaints : 6, Responses : 0, Resolved : 0

CONSUMER IS ADVISED TO FILE COMPLAINT  WITH DESIGNATED OFFICER (FOOD SAFETY) CHENNAI

Complaint comments
 
Leave a comment

Posted by on February 4, 2016 in Consumer Awareness

 
 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 362 other followers

%d bloggers like this: