MANGALDAS RAGHAVJI RUPAREL & ANR. vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.

The Supreme Court upheld the convictions of the appellants under Sections 7(v) and 19(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, affirming that the report of the public analyst is admissible in evidence under Section 13(5) and does not require the analyst to be called as a witness. The Court clarified that notice under Section 11 is only necessary for the person from whom the sample was taken, and the first appellant, as the vendor, bears the burden of proving lack of mens rea. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the transaction constituted a 'sale' as defined in Section 2(xiii), despite the compulsion involved in the sample collection process.