Holding

The Supreme Court held that the public analyst’s report creates a rebuttable presumption of compliance with Rule 18 under Section 114 Evidence Act, and since the presumption was not challenged, the conviction of accused No.1 stands, while the acquittal of accused No.2 is upheld.

Summary

The State of Himachal Pradesh prosecuted Narendra Kumar (accused No.1) and a vendor (accused No.2) under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act for selling adulterated sugar. A food inspector sealed a sample and sent it, along with a memorandum and seal impression, to a public analyst. The analyst’s report confirmed the seals were intact and the sample adulterated. The trial court acquitted both accused, holding that Rule 18 of the 1955 Rules requiring separate dispatch of the memorandum and seal impression was not complied with. The High Court upheld the acquittal of the vendor but also found the trial court’s reasoning on Rule 18 defective. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the public analyst’s report creates a presumption of compliance with Rule 18 under Section 114 of the Evidence Act, which was not rebutted; therefore the conviction of accused No.1 stands, while the acquittal of accused No.2 is affirmed. The court sentenced accused No.1 to six months’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,000, with a provision for possible commutation.

Issues considered

Whether non‑compliance with Rule 18 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, defeats the prosecution under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act.
Whether the report of the public analyst, as an official document, gives rise to a presumption of regularity under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Whether the requirement of separate dispatch of the memorandum and seal impression is mandatory and, if not proved, bars conviction.
Whether the acquittal of the vendor (accused No.2) is justified on the facts.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 313
Indian Evidence Act, 1872s. 114
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954s. 13, s. 16(1)(a)(i), s. 19
Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955s. Rule 17, s. Rule 18, s. Rule 7

Subjects

Food adulterationRule 18Public analyst reportSection 114 presumptionSeal integrityCriminal convictionAcquittal

Judgment

ST A TE OF H.P. A
v.
NARENDRA KUMAR AND ANR.

FEBRUARY 16, 2004

[DORAISWAMY RAJU AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.] B

Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954/Prevention of Food
Adulteration Rules, 1955-Section 16(1)(a)(i)/Rule 18-Adulteration offood-
Prosecution for-Plea of accused No. I that the article was purchased from C
. accused No.2-Sealed sample sent to the Public Analyst-Report of Public
Analyst showing that seal on container of sample tallied with specimen
impression of the seal separately sent-Acquittal by Courts below of accused
No. I for non-compliance of the Rule and of accused No.2 for the case of
purchase ofarticle not proved-On appeal, held: A presumption can be drawn
that requirements of the Rule have been complied with-Presumption u!s 114 D
of Evidence Act in relation to regular performance of official acts applies to
the report of Public Analyst-Hence acquittal of accused No. I not justifled-
However, acquittal order of accused No.2 needs no interference-Evidence
Act, 1872-Section 114.

Respondent No.I accused was prosecuted u/s I6(I)(a)(i) of Prevention E
of Food Adulteration Act, I954. According to prosecution case, Food
Inspector after taking the sample of adulterated articles, sealed the same
and sent to the Public Analyst. Public Analyst found that the seals and
memo received separately were intact. The seal fixed on the container of
the sample tallied with the specimen impression of the seal separately sent F

---
.~
by the Food Inspector. On analysis, the sample was found to be
adulterated. During trial respondent No.2-accused was impleaded •
Respondent No.I pleaded innocence and stated that the articles were
purchased from respondent No.2, which was not meant for sale.
Respondent No.2 took the plea that the articles were not sold to respondent
No.1 and that the receipt produced was fictitious. G
Trial Court acquitted accused No.1 holding that there was no
compliance of mandatory requirements of Rule 18 of Prevention of Food
Adulteration Rules, 1955 as there was no definite material about dispatch
of the seal impression and the memo separately. Accused No.2 was
413 H
414 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] 2 S.C.R.

t\ acquitted on the ground titat accused No.I had failed to show that the bill
on which he had placed reliance was genuine. High Court upheld the
acquittal of the accused persons.

In appeal to this Court, appellant-State contended that when the
Public Analyst was satisfied about the dispatch of the article and there
3 was not even any suggestion about any prejudice caused or the correctness
of the report of the Public Analyst, it cannot be said that provision of Rule
18 was not complied with.

Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1.1. The object of Rule 18 of Prevention of Food Adulteration
Rules, 1955 is to ensure the accuracy of the seal on the sample sent to the
Public Analyst by comparison with the specimen impression of the seal
sent by the Food Inspector separately. The report of the Public Analyst
in terms of ~ule 7(3) shows that he found the same intact and unbroken.
ID The seal fixed on the container and on the outer cover of the sample tallied
with the specimen impression of the seal separately sent by the Food
Inspector. A presumption can be drawn that requirements of Rule 18 have
been complied with. The presumption under Section 114 of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872 in relation to regular performance of official acts
applies to the report of a Public Analyst. However, this presumption is
IE rebuttable. No effoirt was made by the accused to dislodge this
presumption. There was even no suggestion to the Food Inspector who
exhibited the report that there is any untruth in the recital by the Public
Analyst. Under sub-section (5) of Section 13 of the Act any document
purporting to be a report signed by a Public Analyst unless it has been
•F superseded under sub-section (3) of the said Section or any document
purporting to be a certificate to be signed by the Director of the Central
Food Laboratory, may be used as evidence of the facts stated therein in
any proceeding under the Act. (418-H; 419-A-D]

State of Maharashtra v. Rajkaran, [1987] Supp. SCC 183, referred to.

1.2. Rule 18, required that a copy of the memorandum and specimen
impression of the seal used to seal the packet shall be sent in a sealed
packet separately to the Public Analyst. The word 'separately' refers to
separate dispatch of articles indicated in Rule 17, and Rule 18. The
expression "in a sealed packet" refers to both the copy of memorandum
H and the specimen impression of the seal. They are both required to be
STATE OF H.P. v. NARENDRA KUMAR 415

sent in a sealed packet. Plurality of packets is not provfr~ed for and A
obligated.. What is required is that the copy of memorandum and specimen
impression of the seal used to seal the packet are to be sent in a sealed
packet separately and not with the articles required to be sent under Rule
17. [419-E-F]

N. Sukumaran Nair v. Food Inspector Mavelikara, [1997) 9 SCC 101, B
referred to.

1.3. During trial PW-1 produced postal receipts with regard to the
memos and exhibits regarding dispatch of the same. The genuineness of
the receipts was not questioned by accused No.I. Trial Court and High
Court did not consider the evidential value of these documents. [420-D) C
1.4. In view of the evidence on record in the background of the legal
position, Trial Court and the High Court were not justified in directing
acquittal of accused No.1. So far as the acquittal of accused No.2 is
concerned the conclusions of the Trial Court and the High Court have D
been arrived at by properly appreciating the evidence and no interference
is called for. [420-E-F)

2. The occurrence took place nearly two decades back, and the
Courts below acquitted the accused, though erroneously. Therefore,
keeping in view the nature of violation and the peculiar facts and E
circumstances of the case while sentencing accused no.1 to undergo 6
months RI and fine of Rs. 1000, it is clarified that if accused no.1 moves
the appropriate GovernDJent to commute the sentence of imprisonment
subject to such conditions or terms as the Government may chose to
impose. For period of three months, the accused need not surrender to
undergo sentence. During this period it shall be open to him to move the F
appropriate Government for commutation. [420-F-H)

N. Sukumaran Nair v. Food Inspector Mavelikara, [1997) 9 SCC 101,
relied on.

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No: G
1109 of 1997.

From the Judgment and Order dated 13.12.96 of the Himachal Pradesh
High Court in Crl.A.No. 74 of 1991.

H
416 SUPREME COURT REPO.RTS [2004] 2 S.C.R.

A J.S. Attri, L.R. Nath for the Appellant.

Anil Nag for Respondent No. I

Neeraj Kr. Jain for U.S. Prasad for Respondent No. 2.

B The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. The State of Himachal Pradesh calls in question
legality of judgment rendered by learned Single Judge of the Himachal Pradesh
High Court affirming judgment of the trial court holding that respondent no. I
.(hereinafter referred to as 'the accused no. I) was not guilty of the accusations
C under Sections I6(l)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, I954
(in short the 'Act').

The prosecution version which led to trial of the accused is essentially
as follows:

D On 1 l.4.I985. the Food Inspector took sample of "Shakkar" from the
shop of the accused no. 1. He purchased 600 gms. of "Shakkar" for analysis
after serving the requisite notice. Thereafter sample articles were sealed and
one such sample was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis. On analysis the
sample was found to be containing unpennitted acid coal tar of orange shade.
Prosecution was launched after service of notice in tenns of Section 13(2) of
E the Act. During trial, the accused no. I applied under Section I 9(2) seeking
to implead Jain Tradiiig Company represented through its manager- respondent
no.2 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Vendor'). The vendor was impleaded as
accused no.2. In order to establish its accusation, the prosecution examined
4 witnesses and produced the record relating to the sanction and the Public
F Analyst report. The accused persons pleaded innocence. In his statement
recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in
short 'the Cr.P.C.') accused no. 1 took the stand that though sample was
taken, there was no proper mixing and that it was not taken from the place
indicated in the complaint. He further took the plea that his brother had
purchased the articles in question from accused no.2, which was not meant
G for sale but was for consumption by animals. Accused no.2 took the plea that
articles in question were never sold to accused no. l, and the receipt which
was produced was fictitious. Trial court by judgment and order dated
24.10.1990 held that accusations were not established, and recorded the
findings in favour of the accused. Firstly, it v1as held that the sanction order
H was defective, and secondly there was no compliance of the mandatory·
- STATE OF H.P. v. NARENDRAKUMAR [PASAYAT, J.]

requirements of Rule I 8 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955
(in short the 'Rules'). For coming to the second conclusion it was held that
417
A

there was no definite material about despatch of the seal impression and the
memo Ex. P-E separately. So Far as culpability of accused no.2 is concerned,
with reference to Section 19 it was held that the accused no. I failed to show

-- that the bill on which he placed reliance was a genuine one and that the
sample article of food while in his possession was properly stored and that
it was sealed in the same state as he had purchased. The Stare questioned
correctness of the judgment before the High Court. By the impugned judgment,
B

the High Court held that the Trial Court was not justified in its conclusion
about the absence of valid sanction. It, however, held that the prosecution
has failed to prove despatch of seal impression and memo separately which C
is a mandatory requirement under Rule I 8 of the Rules. It also upheld the
acquittal of accused no. 2.

In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the State submitted that
the evidence of tt:" witnesses has not been properly analysed by the Trial
Court and the High Court. The Public Analyst in his certificate has categorically D
stated that the seals and the memo received separately were intact and there
was no defect therein. It was submitted that at any rate no prejudice has been
caused and shown by the accused. It was urged that when the Public Analyst
was satisfied about due despatch of the articles and there was not even any
suggestion about any prejudice caused or that the report of the Public Analyst E
did not reflect the correct state of affairs, the view taken by the Trial Court
and the High Court cannot be maintained ..

In response, learned counsel for accused no. I submitted that the
requirements of Rule 18 are mandatory in nature and, therefore, it was rightly
observed by the High Court that there has been non-compliance with the F
requirements of the said rule making the prosecution case vulnerable.
Reference was made to a decision of this Court in State of Maharashtra v.
Rajkaran, [ 1987] Supp. SCC 183 in support of the stand. It was submitted
that the concurrent findings of fact recorded should not be disturbed and in
any event nearly two decades have passed and this is not a fit case for
interference under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. G
The rule has been amended by GSR 293(E), dated 23.3.1985 with
effect from 24.9.l 985. Rule 18 before amendment reads as follows:

"Memorandum and impression of seal to be sent separately - A
copy of the memorandum and specimen impression of the seal used H

. -:.. ·. ~
418 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2004] 2 S.C.R.

A to seal the packet shall be sent to the Public Analyst separately by
registered post and delivered to him or to any person authorised by
him."

After amendment it reads as follows:

B "Memorandum and impression of s.:,al to be sent separately - A
copy of the memorandum and specimen impression of the seal used
.to seal the packet shall be sent to the Public Analyst in a sealed
-
packet separately by any suitable means immediately but not later
than the succeeding working day."

C The new rule makes the following changes:

"(i) The copy of the memorandum and specimen impression of the
· seal are now required to be sent in a sealed packet separately,
which was not a requirement under the old rule.

(ii) The mode of sending now is by 'any suitable means', whereas
D under the old rule it was by registered post or hand delivery.
(iii) The time for sending the packet is ~ow prescribed as 'immediately
but not later than the succeeding day', but there was no such
prescription of time under the old rule."

E Rule 18 requires the Food Inspector; (i) to send (a) a copy of the.
memorandum; and (b) specimen impression of the seal used to seal in a
sealed packet to the Public Analyst; (ii) to send this sealed packet separately
-
by any suitable means (iii) to send the same immediately but not later than
the succeeding working day. The expression 'separately' has to be understood
F on a conjoint reading of Rules 7, 17 and 18. Rule 7 postulates that Public
Analyst on receipt of the packet containing the sample for analysis has to \---
compare the seals on the container and the outer cover with specimen
impression received separately and has to note the condition of the seals
thereon. Reading Rules 17 and 18 together, it is clear that the word 'separately'
used in Rule 18 has been intended to convey the sense that the copy of the
G memorandum and the specimen impression of the seal has to be sent
independently of the articles that are required to be sent under Rule 17. In

H
this connection, reference can be made to the observations made by this
Court in Raj Karan 's case (supra), wherein it was observed that it is mandatory
that the materials referred in Rules 17 and 18 are to be separately sent to the
Public Analyst. The object of Rule 18 is to ensure the accuracy of the seal
on the sample sent to the Public Analyst by comparison with the specimen
--
' -
STA TE OF H.P. v. NARENDRA KUMAR [PASA Y AT, .1.J, 419

impression of the seal sent by the food Inspector separately. The report of A
the Public Analyst in terms of Rule 7(3) marked as Ext.P J shows !hat he
found the same intact and unbroken. The seal fixed on· the container anc! on
the outer cover of the sam pie tallied with the specimen imp:ession of the seal
separately sent by the Food Inspector. A presumption can be drawn that
requirements of Rule 18 have been complied with. The presumption under B
Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short 'the Evidence Act')
in relation to regular perfomrnnce of official acts applies to the report of a
Public Analyst. However, this presumption is rebuttable. No effort was
made by the accused to dislodge this presumption. There was even no
suggestion to the Food Inspector (PW-I) who exhibited the report that there
is any untruth in the recital by the Public Analyst. It is relevant to note that C
under sub-section (5) of Section 13 of the Act any document purporting to
be a report signed by a Public Analyst unless it has been superseded under
sub-section (3) of the said Section or any document purporting to be a
certificate to be signed by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory, may
be used as evidence of the facts stated therein in any proceeding under the D
Act. It is urged that the memorandum and the specimen impression of seal
were to be sent separately in different packets. On a plain reading of Rule
18, what is required is that a copy of the memorandum and specimen
impression of the seal used to seal the packet shall be sent in a sealed packet
(underlined for emphasis) separately to the Public Analyst. As indicated
above, the word 'separately' refers to separate despatch of articles indicated E
in Rule 17 and Rule 18. The expression 'in a sealed packet' refers to both
the copy of memorandum and the specimen impression of the seal. They are
both required to be sent in a sealed packet. Plurality of packets is not provided
for and obligated. What is required is that the copy of memorandum and
specimen impression of the seal used to seal the packet are to be sent in a F
sealed packet separately and not with the articles required to be sent under
Rule 17.

This Court in N. Sukumaran Nair v. Food Inspector, Mavelikara, [1997]
9 SCC 101 dealt with requirements of Rule 18 and in paragraph 2 noted as
follows: G
"It has vehemently been urged by Mr. V.A. Bobde, learned Senior
Counsel that compliance of Rule 18 was mandatory and since there
was an infraction in the instant case, the view of the trial court deserves
to prevail. We fail to see how there is violation of the said Rule. The H
420 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] 2 S.C.R.

A Food Inspector as PW I was categoric that he had sent the specimen
impression of the seal separately to the Public Analyst under sealed
cover. It is true that he did not adduce in evidence the postal receipt
vide which the specimen impression of the seal was sent separately.
The Food Inspector could be dubbed wrong if his statement had been
challenged in cross-examination. As is obvious, the Food Inspector
B
deposed to the observance of the requirement of Rule 18 but, at best,
can be said not to have introduced corroborative evidence to his
word. But, if the word of the Food Inspector is not challenged in
cross examination and is otherwise found corroborated From the report
of the Public Analyst wherein the necessary recitals, even though in
c printed form, are available, compliance of Rule 18 becomes obvious.
Such report by the Public Analyst is ex facie evidence. There are
methods to challenge the same which were not resorted on. We are,
thus, of the view that the High Court was justified in upsetting the
order of acquittal on the aforesaid ground."
D Additionally during trial PW-1 produced postal receipts (Exts. PE and
PG) with regard to the memos and Ext. PWl/A and Ext.PWl/B regarding
despatch of the same sending of memos. The genuiness of the receipts was
not questioned by accused no. 1. Strangely, the Trial Court and High Court
did not consider the evidentiary value of these documents.
E
When the evidence on record is considered in the background of the
legal position highlighted above, the inevitable conclusion is that the Trial
Court and the High Court were not justified in directing acquittal o( accused
no. I. So far as the acquittal of accused no.2 is concerned, the conclusions of
F the Trial Court and the High Court have been arrived at by properly
appreciating the evidence and no interference is called for.

The occurrence took place nearly two decades back, and the Courts
below acquitted the accused, though erroneously. Therefore, keeping in view
-•
the nature of violation and the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case
G while sentencing accused no. I to undergo 6 months RI and fine of Rs. I ,000
we make it clear that if accused no. I moves the appropriate government to
commute the sentence of imprisonment, the same may be considered in the
light of this Court's decision in N. Sukumaran 's case (supra) subject to such
conditions or terms as the government may choose to impose. For period of
three months;-the accused need not surrender to undergo sentence. During
H
..... STA TE OF H.P. v. NARENDRA KUMAR [PASA YAT, J.]

this period it shall be open to him to move the appropt .Jte government for
421

A
commutation. The fate of the order of commutation, if any, shall be operative.
If no order in the matter of commutation is passed by the appropriate
government the accused no. I shall surrender the custody to serve the rem a;· 1der
of sentence.

The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. B

K.K.T. · Appeal allowed.