Gujarat High Court Dismisses Appeal By Food Inspector
The Gujarat Excessive Courtroom has dismissed a legal attraction filed by a Meals Inspector of the Surat Municipal Company difficult the acquittal of a person accused of promoting packaged consuming water and not using a legitimate licence. The Courtroom discovered that the prosecution failed to determine that the water bought fell throughout the scope of “packaged consuming water” as outlined below the Prevention of Meals Adulteration Act, 1954, and held that no case was made out below Rule 50 of the PFA Guidelines, 1955.
A Single Bench of Justice Umesh A. Trivedi noticed, “As such, in all the profession as an advocate as additionally Decide, I’ve by no means seen any prosecution solely primarily based on requirement of license the place premises of producing of meals article is visited with none pattern thereof drawn. As such, all over the place pattern of meals is drawn for the goal of inspecting whether or not it confirms to the requirements prescribed below the Act or Guidelines or not.”
The Courtroom added, “The proof led by the prosecution doesn’t encourage confidence in absence of any contemporaneous report that the accused was dealing in ‘packaged consuming water’ as claimed by the appellant – Meals Inspector.”
Advocate Kaushal D Pandya appeared for the Appellant, whereas Further Public Prosecutor Megha Chitalia represented the Respondents.
Transient Details
The Meals Inspector, Appellant herein, had lodged a criticism below Part 7(3) learn with Part 16 of the Prevention of Meals Adulteration Act, 1954, alleging violation of Rule 50 of the Prevention of Meals Adulteration Guidelines, 1955, and Rule 5 of the Gujarat Guidelines, 1961. It was alleged that the Respondents have been working a enterprise below the identify ‘Swagat Water’, the place they saved and equipped packaged consuming water with out possessing the requisite licence.
In keeping with the Appellant, a website inspection revealed a functioning water therapy unit and a number of plastic carboys stuffed with water being loaded right into a tempo. He additional claimed that regardless of being given time to supply a sound licence or fee receipt, the Respondents failed to take action, resulting in the submitting of the criticism with prior sanction from the Native Well being Authority.
The Respondents denied that he was manufacturing or promoting “packaged consuming water,” asserting that the water equipped was pure consuming water, chilled and distributed in bulk containers, with no packaging, processing, labelling, or components concerned. He relied on prior written representations addressed to the Surat Municipal Company clarifying this place.
The Trial Courtroom acquitted the Respondents. Aggrieved by the order of the Trial Courtroom, the Appellant approached the Excessive Courtroom.
Reasoning of the Courtroom
The Courtroom noticed that the prosecution didn’t current any contemporaneous report exhibiting that the water in query was certainly “packaged consuming water.” Regardless of alleging that carboys stuffed with water have been saved and equipped, no samples have been drawn, no packaging labels have been seized, and no unbiased witnesses have been examined.
The Bench famous that the declare concerning signage describing the premises as promoting “packaged consuming water” appeared for the primary time throughout oral proof and was not talked about within the authentic criticism, discover, or sanction software.
The Courtroom noticed, “If the appellant – complainant asserts that respondent – accused was manufacturing ‘packaged consuming water’ on the place of inspection… he would have so mirrored within the criticism, even when he has determined to not take pattern of any ‘packaged consuming water’.”
Criticising the procedural conduct of the prosecution, the Courtroom remarked, “In all the profession as an advocate as additionally Decide, I’ve by no means seen any prosecution solely primarily based on requirement of license the place premises of producing of meals article is visited with none pattern thereof drawn.”
The Courtroom relied on the letters despatched by the Respondent No.1 to the Company nicely earlier than the inspection, which said that the water being bought was “pure consuming water” and never lined below the licensing regime, which had not been responded to by the municipal authority.
The Bench famous, “Their constant case is that ‘water’ simplicitor isn’t a ‘meals’ as outlined below Part 2(v) of ‘the Act, 1954’, which is being particularly excluded from the provisions of the Act and the Guidelines.”
The Courtroom held that the prosecution failed to determine its case past affordable doubt and located no floor to intervene with the acquittal, stating, “The defence raised seems to be extra possible than the case pleaded by the prosecution…They’ve very categorically made clear that they don’t seem to be dealing both in ‘mineral water’ or even ‘packaged consuming water’. Although there are a number of such Establishments, which cope with easy water and chilling course of named by them of their communications besides these two Establishments, no requirement of license was requested for from any of the Establishments named therein. Not solely that, neither the Meals Inspector nor competent authority within the Surat Municipal Company even tried to reply their two communications made a lot previous to the date of go to.”
Consequently, the Courtroom dismissed the attraction and refused to intervene with the order of the Trial Courtroom.
Trigger Title: S.C. Desai v. Parshotambhai Jadavbhai Monpara & Anr. (R/Prison Attraction No. 1316 Of 2008)
