Food adulteration prosecution upheld despite minor sampling irregularities and inartful consent, where substantial compliance was shown.

Food Adulteration prosecution was sustained where the sample-taking officer's appointment as Food Inspector was proved and his authority was not effectively challenged. Alleged defects in notice, sample quantity, witness attestation, and seal comparison were treated as minor irregularities because the statutory safeguards were substantially complied with and no prejudice was shown. Written consent for prosecution was also upheld as sufficient in substance, even if inartfully drafted, because the competent authority had granted consent and the statute did not require exact formulation of the offence. On that basis, the conviction for selling adulterated coriander was maintained and the revision failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Food Inspector's authority and appointment were duly established so as to sustain the sampling proceedings; (ii) whether alleged non-compliance with the sampling and analytical procedure under the Food Adulteration law vitiated the conviction; (iii) whether the written consent for prosecution was valid.

Issue (i): Whether the Food Inspector's authority and appointment were duly established so as to sustain the sampling proceedings.

Analysis: The statutory scheme requires the appointment of Food Inspectors by the competent Government and their possession of the prescribed qualifications. The record showed that the officer who took the sample had been appointed as Food Inspector and that his status was not effectively challenged at the relevant stages. The objection was treated as unsupported by the evidence and not sufficient to discredit the sampling process.

Conclusion: The objection failed and the sampling proceedings were not invalid on this ground.

Issue (ii): Whether alleged non-compliance with the sampling and analytical procedure under the Food Adulteration law vitiated the conviction.

Analysis: The requirements regarding notice, quantity of sample, presence of witnesses, and comparison of seals were examined against the statutory provisions and rules. The notice in Form 6 was held to be a record of the completed sampling transaction and not a prerequisite to the taking of the sample. The slight shortfall in sample quantity was treated as immaterial because the prescribed quantity in the rule was only approximate and no prejudice to the accused was shown. The presence of motbirs satisfied the requirement of attestation at the time of sampling, and the comparison of seals by the Public Analyst, coupled with the absence of challenge in the courts below, negatived any infirmity under the analytical safeguards.

Conclusion: The alleged procedural defects did not vitiate the conviction.

Issue (iii): Whether the written consent for prosecution was valid.

Analysis: The consent was examined in the light of the statutory requirement that prosecution under the Act be instituted only by or with written consent of the competent authority. The wording of the consent was held to be inartificial but sufficient in substance, and it was further held that the statute does not require the specific offence to be set out with precision, nor does it require prior application of mind to the facts in the manner suggested by the defence.

Conclusion: The consent was valid and the prosecution was properly instituted.

Final Conclusion: The conviction for selling adulterated coriander was upheld, and the revision was dismissed after rejecting all challenges to the legality of the prosecution and the sampling procedure.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statutory safeguards for sampling and prosecution under the food adulteration law are substantially complied with and no prejudice is shown, minor procedural irregularities do not vitiate the conviction; a written consent for prosecution is valid if it is given by the competent authority in substance, even if its wording is inartificial.

---