Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 – Section 10(7) – Mandatory compliance – Food Inspector’s failure to secure independent witnesses – Lack of evidence of earnest efforts to associate independent witnesses – Non-compliance with Section 10(7) fatal to prosecution case – Conviction and sentence set aside – Petitioner acquitted.
Facts: The petitioner, accused of selling adulterated smart drinks containing saccharin, was convicted under Sections 2(ia), 7(i), and 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, by the trial court and upheld by the appellate court. The Food Inspector (PW1) claimed to have called independent witnesses during sampling but failed to provide their details or secure their signatures, violating Section 10(7). The petitioner challenged the conviction, alleging non-compliance with the mandatory provision.
Held: The court ruled that Section 10(7) of the PFA Act, requiring the Food Inspector to call one or more independent witnesses and obtain their signatures during sampling, is mandatory. While earnest efforts to secure independent witnesses may relieve the prosecution of this obligation if witnesses refuse, there must be positive evidence of such efforts. In this case, PW1’s testimony lacked credible evidence of attempts to associate independent witnesses, and no other witnesses corroborated his claims. Total non-compliance with Section 10(7) vitiated the trial. The concurrent findings of conviction and sentence were set aside, and the petitioner was acquitted.
Case Referred: Food Inspector v. Narayanan (2003 (2) KLT 1035); Ram Labhaya v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi (AIR 1974 SC 789); Rajinder Kumar v. State of H.P. [(2003) 11 SCC 120].
Citations : 2025 KER 43403 : 2025 (6) KLR 191 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2150
High Court of Kerala – Criminal Revision Petition
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH; J.
Crl.R.P. No. 1273 of 2010; 19 June 2025
