Chandigarh: HC acquits man 25 years after he was nabbed with ‘misbranded bread’
The fresh training of the inspectors in 2003 from a duly appointed, approved laboratory endorses the fact that the earlier notification was illegally issued, underlined the court
The fresh training of the inspectors in 2003 from a duly appointed, approved laboratory endorses the fact that the earlier notification was illegally issued, underlined the court
The Punjab and Haryana high court (HC) has acquitted a man 25 years after he was found with bread packets meant for sale without expiry date, as the food inspector who nabbed him was not qualified to take samples of the seizure.
The HC bench of justice NS Shekhawat upheld trial court order whereby the man accused of carrying “misbranded bread” in his vehicle for public sale was acquitted.
The complaint was instituted on February 28, 2001, and wide judgment August 21, 2008, the accused Jagdish Prasad was acquitted. It was against this order that UT had filed an appeal on May 24, 2010. The seizure was reported by food inspector Sukhwinder Singh on December 22, 2000, when he intercepted a vehicle carrying bread with no expiry date on the packets. He prepared samples as per the provisions of the Protection of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, and also associated a witness to the case.
However, the trial court acquitted the person as it found the food inspector not qualified to take the samples.
The high court upheld the trial court order observing the Food Health Authority, Chandigarh, was not approved and authorised to impart training to the food inspector as per the Act, where he had undergone the training. It noted that infact the inspectors were imparted fresh training in 2003 from a competent laboratory, duly authorised, approved and fresh appointment and authorisation was notified in the case of food inspector and other inspectors. This endorses the fact that the earlier notification was illegally issued, it underlined.
The court further stated that no doubt the law empowers a private purchaser to launch prosecution for the commission of an offence under Food Act. However, in the case in hand prosecution was launched by a food inspector for the purpose of analysis. Hence, he cannot be equated with a private purchaser. Both the categories, have been authorised to launch prosecution in the capacity of food inspector and private consumer or registered consumer association, are different from each other and one cannot be a substitute for the other. An ordinary purchaser can purchase a food article from a shopkeeper but while doing so he has not to inform or explain to him that he is purchasing the same for the purpose of analysis. But in the case of a food inspector he has to declare that samples are being taken for the purpose of analysis, the court added.
Recommended Topics