- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9219 CRL.RP No. 100258 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100258 OF 2019 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SHRI. RAVASAB S/O. ANNASAB TANGADI, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: KIRANA SHOP, R/O: AINAPUR, TAL: ATHANI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591303. …PETITIONER (BY SRI VITTHAL S.TELI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH FOOD INSPECTOR, TALUKA HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE OFFICE, ATHANI, TAL: ATHANI, DIST: BELAGAVI, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR. 2. MAHADEV SATTEPPA BEKKERI, FOOD INSPECTOR, TALUKA HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE OFFICE, ATHANI, TAL: ATHANI, DIST: BELAGAVI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI T. HANUMAREDDY, ADDL. GOVT. ADVOCATE NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W SECTION 401 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 11.09.2019 PASSED IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.18/2014 BY VII ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI, SITTING AT CHIKODI AND JUDGMENT DATED 09.01.2014 Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9219 CRL.RP No. 100258 of 2019 IN C.C.NO.432/2008 BY THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC-ATHANI FOR THE OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 7(I) R/W SECTION 16 OF PREVENTION OF FOOD ADULTERATION ACT, 1954 AND THEREBY ACQUITTING THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND ETC.,. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 13.06.2025, COMING ON FOR ‘PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER’, THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: CAV ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND) Heard Sri Vitthal S. Teli, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri T. Hanumareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent-State. 2. This criminal revision petition is filed by the accused challenging the judgment and order of conviction dated 09.01.2014 passed in C.C. No.432/2008 by the Court of the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Athani (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’), and the judgment dated 11.09.2019 passed in Criminal Appeal No.18/2014 by the Court of the VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi, sitting at Chikkodi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the appellate Court’). - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9219 CRL.RP No. 100258 of 2019 3. The case of the prosecution is that the complainant, Sri Mahadev Satteppa Bekkeri, was appointed as Food Inspector pursuant to Order No.PHI/PFA/1/97/98 dated 07.04.2000 issued by the Food (Health) Authority and the Director of Health and Family Welfare Services, Bangalore. On 29.01.2008 at about 11:30 a.m., the complainant visited the kirana shop of the accused, Sri Ravasab Annasab Tangadi, situated at Ainapur village. The complainant introduced himself to the accused and informed him of the purpose of his visit. He requested the persons present in the shop to act as panchas; however, none consented to do so. 4. On the said date, the complainant purchased 1500 grams of green gram dal from the accused for a sum of Rs.54/-. The accused issued a receipt for the said purchase, whereafter the complainant served a notice in Form No.VI to the accused and obtained his signature thereon. The complainant then divided the green gram dal into three equal parts, placed them in clean and dry empty - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9219 CRL.RP No. 100258 of 2019 polythene packets, sealed them, and affixed labels in accordance with the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). On 31.01.2008, the complainant handed over two sample packets of the green gram dal to the Taluka Health Officer, Athani, and obtained acknowledgment. One sample packet along with a memorandum containing the specimen impression of the seal was sent to the Public Analyst, Public Health Institute, Bangalore, by registered post. 5. On 28.02.2008, a report was received from the Public Analyst, Public Health Institute, Bangalore, indicating that 'Tartrazine', an artificial colour, was detected in the green gram dal. Based on the said report, the complainant filed a private complaint against the accused. The trial Court took cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 7(i) read with Section 16 of the Act and registered the case. The accused appeared before - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9219 CRL.RP No. 100258 of 2019 the trial Court through his counsel, pleaded not guilty, and claimed to be tried. 6. In order to establish its case, the prosecution examined 4 witnesses as PW.1 to PW.4 and marked 15 documents as Exhibits P1 to P15, in addition to producing 2 material objects, marked as M.O.1 and M.O.2. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, the accused did not adduce any evidence in his defence. The trial Court appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted the accused and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of which he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of fifteen days. 7. Aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction passed by the trial Court, the accused preferred Criminal Appeal No.18/2014 before the appellate Court. The appellate Court re-appreciating the evidence on - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9219 CRL.RP No. 100258 of 2019 record, upheld the conviction recorded by the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. 8. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner– accused, submits that the collection of samples by the competent authority was not in compliance with sub- section (7) of Section 10 of the Act, which is mandatory in nature. He further submits that the report of the Public Analyst was not served upon the petitioner as required under sub-section (2) of Section 13 of the Act. It is also contended that the procedure followed in the collection of the sample and its dispatch to the analyst was in violation of Rule 18 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (for short, ‘the Rules’). 8.1 Learned counsel further submits that both the trial Court and the appellate Court committed an error in recording the conviction without considering the above procedural lapses. In support of his contentions, learned counsel placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9219 CRL.RP No. 100258 of 2019 Supreme Court in Narayana Prasad Sahu v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [(2022) 1 SCC 87], Vijendra v. State of Uttar Pradesh, [(2020) 15 SCC 763], Rameshwar Dayal v. State of U.P., [(1995) Supp (4) SCC 659], and the judgment of this Court in H.L. Nellashekara v. The Food Inspector, Primary Health Center, [ILR 2006 KAR 933]. 9. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent– State, submits that Exhibit P15 was issued in compliance with sub-section (2) of Section 13 of the Act. He further submits that the evidence on record is sufficient to prove the offences charged against the accused. 10. Considered the submissions of learned counsels for the parties and perused the record. 11. The case against the petitioner arises from a complaint filed under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C., alleging commission of offences punishable under Section 7(i) read - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9219 CRL.RP No. 100258 of 2019 with Section 16 of the Act. The Food Inspector of the Local Health Authority inspected the shop and collected a food sample for analysis under Section 10 of the Act. A sample of green gram dal was collected, and the signature of the person in charge of the shop was obtained. The Food Inspector received a report dated 28.02.2008 from the Public Analyst, wherein the presence of 'Tartrazine' was detected in the green gram dal sample. Consequently, proceedings were initiated for the aforesaid offences. 12. The trial Court, upon considering the evidence of PW.1-the Taluka Health Officer, PW.2-the District Health and Family Welfare Services Officer, PW.3-the Food Inspector, and PW.4-the Chief Special Chemical Analyst, Bangalore, along with the documentary evidence produced by the prosecution, held the accused/petitioner guilty of the offences charged. 13. PW.1 deposed regarding the collection of the sample and provided the dates of the Public Analyst’s - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9219 CRL.RP No. 100258 of 2019 report and filing of the complaint. PW.3, the Food Inspector, furnished details from the collection of the sample up to the initiation of the proceedings. However, the evidence adduced by the prosecution is silent with respect to compliance with the mandatory provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. 14. A reading of sub-section (7) of Section 10 of the Act makes it clear that when the Food Inspector takes action under sub-section (2), sub-section (4), or sub- section (6), it is mandatory that he calls one or more persons to be present at the time such action is taken and obtains their signatures. In the present case, the prosecution has not produced any evidence to establish compliance with these mandatory provisions. 15. Similarly, sub-section (2) of Section 13 mandates that a copy of the Public Analyst’s report shall be furnished to the accused within ten days from the date - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9219 CRL.RP No. 100258 of 2019 of its receipt. This requirement is further reinforced under Rule 9-B of the Rules. 16. Learned Additional Government Advocate has relied on Exhibit P15 to demonstrate compliance with Section 13(2) of the Act. However, Exhibit P15 is merely a carbon copy of the intimation letter addressed to the petitioner under Section 13(2). Section 13(2), read with Rule 9-B, mandates not merely the issuance of such intimation, but its service upon the accused. Though Exhibit P15 purports to enclose the Public Analyst’s report, there is no evidence on record to substantiate the actual enclosure of the said report. In any event, mere issuance of a notice under Section 13(2) without proof of service, particularly without service of the Public Analyst’s report, would not amount to compliance. In the absence of such service, the very object and purpose of Section 13(2) would stand defeated. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9219 CRL.RP No. 100258 of 2019 17. At this stage, it is apposite to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Narayana Prasad Sahu (supra), wherein, while interpreting sub- section (2) of Section 13 of the Act and Rule 9-B of the Rules, it has been held as under: “6. Under sub-section (2) of Section 13, it is mandatory for the Local (Health) Authority to forward a copy of the report of the Public Analyst to the person from whom the sample of the food has been taken in such a manner as may be prescribed. Further mandate of sub-section (2) of Section 13 is that a person to whom the report is forwarded should be informed that if it is so desired, he can make an application to the court within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of the copy of the report to get the sample analysed by the Central Food Laboratory. The report is required to be forwarded after institution of prosecution against the person from whom the sample of the article of food was taken. Apart from the right of the accused to contend that the report is not correct, he has right to exercise an option of sending the sample to the Central Food Laboratory for analysis by making an application to the court within ten days from the date of receipt of the report. If a copy of the report of the Public Analyst is not delivered to the accused, his right under sub-section (2) of Section 13 of praying for sending the sample to the Central Food Laboratory will be defeated. Consequently, his right to challenge the report will be defeated. His right to defend himself will be adversely affected. This Court in Vijendra2 held that mere dispatch of the report to the accused is not a sufficient compliance with the requirement of sub-section (2) of - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9219 CRL.RP No. 100258 of 2019 Section 13 and the report must be served on the accused.” “8. xxx More than one mode was prescribed by Rule 9-B for serving the report of Public Analyst on the accused. In the present case, after the postal packet was returned, not even an attempt was made to personally serve the report on the appellant.” 18. In Rameshwar Dayal (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the supply of the Public Analyst’s report, as required under Section 13(2) of the Act, is mandatory in nature. In Vijendra (supra), while examining the requirement under Section 10(7) of the Act, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that compliance with the said provision is mandatory. 19. With regard to Rule 18 of the Rules, this Court, in H.L. Nellashekara (supra), held that unless there is evidence to show that the seal on the container and the outer cover was compared with the specimen seal received separately, it cannot be concluded that the specimen seal was sent separately, as mandated under Rule 18. It was - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9219 CRL.RP No. 100258 of 2019 further held that, in the absence of such separate dispatch of the specimen seal, the requirements of Rule 18 are not complied with. The evidence of PW.3 and PW.4 and as per Exhibits P12 and P13, compliance of Rule 18 of the Rules is proved. 20. If the present case is examined in the light of the principles of law laid down in the aforesaid judgments, it becomes evident that there is no material on record to establish compliance with the mandatory requirement under sub-section (7) of Section 10 of the Act. Similarly, Exhibit P15, being merely a carbon copy of the intimation, is not sufficient to demonstrate compliance with Section 13(2) of the Act unless it is proved that the notice, along with the Public Analyst’s report, was duly served upon the accused. Such service is not established from the evidence on record. Once it is held that compliance with the aforesaid provisions of the Act is mandatory, failure to adhere to such requirements vitiates the proceedings and should result in the dismissal of the complaint. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9219 CRL.RP No. 100258 of 2019 21. The trial Court and the appellate Court, without examining whether the mandatory requirements necessary to maintain the complaint were fulfilled, proceeded to record the conviction solely on the basis of the oral testimony of witnesses and the documentary evidence. However, unless the mandatory provisions of the Act and the Rules are duly complied with, the oral and documentary evidence, however cogent, cannot sustain the complaint. 22. In the light of the above reasons, this Court is of the considered view that the complaint itself is not maintainable due to non-compliance with the mandatory requirements under sub-section (7) of Section 10, sub- section (2) of Section 13 of the Act, and Rule 18 of the Rules. Hence, the following: ORDER i. The criminal revision petition is allowed. - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9219 CRL.RP No. 100258 of 2019 ii. The judgment and order of conviction dated 09.01.2014 in C.C.No.432/2008 passed by the Court of Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Athani and the order in Criminal Appeal No.18/2014 dated 11.09.2019 passed by the Court of VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi, sitting at Chikkodi, are hereby set aside. iii. The complaint against the petitioner is rejected. iv. The fine amount if any, deposited before the trial Court, to be refunded to the petitioner. v. No order as to cost. Registry to return the trial Court records along with a copy of this order for compliance. Sd/- (K V ARAVIND) JUDGE DDU CT: UMD/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3