Summary
The milk-adulteration conviction was set aside because delivery of the analyst’s report and proper representative sampling were unproved. Mere oral evidence of dispatch did not establish that the accused received the report needed to exercise his valuable right to seek Central Food Laboratory testing. The prosecution also failed to establish appropriate stirring and sampling of the milk; in those circumstances the Food Inspector’s uncorroborated account did not suffice.
Issues
- Whether alleged dispatch without proof of delivery preserved the accused’s right to seek retesting.
- Whether the prosecution established proper representative milk sampling.
Held
- Furnishing the analyst’s report enables an accused to request Central Food Laboratory analysis within the prescribed period after receipt. Even assuming delayed dispatch amounted to substantial compliance, absence of proof of delivery defeated that valuable safeguard on these facts. (¶ 13–15)
- The accused’s failure to apply for retesting could not cure the absence of proof that he received the report. The prosecution could not found penal liability on that report without establishing compliance with the safeguard. (¶ 14–15)
- Milk fat and non-fat measurements depend on a properly homogenised representative sample. The prosecution did not establish appropriate stirring and sampling, and its independent witness did not support its account. On this record the Inspector’s uncorroborated testimony was insufficient; the Court did not treat every unsupported Inspector account as inherently inadmissible. (¶ 16–17)
- The combined failures concerning report delivery and proper sampling left guilt unproved beyond reasonable doubt. (¶ 18)
Result
Appeal allowed; trial, appellate and High Court judgments set aside. Appellant acquitted of the charge under section 7(1) read with section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.