KISAN TRIMBAK KOTHULA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal appeal, by special leave, raises a few questions of law under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (Act XXXVII of 1954) (for short, the Act), ingeniously urged by the appellants, a firm and its two partners, although the plea of 'guilty' entered by the appellants before the trial Court - possibly as part of a 'plea bargaining' which misfired at the appellate level - makes short shrift of the exculpatory and extenuatory arguments urged by his counsel before us. At the end of the weary forensic exercise we gathered what should have been told us first viz., that when the three accused were examined and charges read out they pleaded guilty, which would have abbreviated the hearing here had we known it earlier. We proceed on the footing that the facts set out in the charges are true, that being the net price of a plea of guilt.

(2.) At this stage, the particulars and the setting of the prosecution facts need to be narrated. On October 2, 1973 the Food Inspector of Nasik visited the small restaurant of the first accused firm at about 8.30 a.m., found a few litres of milk kept for sale and enquired about the quality of the milk. He was told by accused No. 3 (a partner of the business, the other partner being his brother, accused No. 2) that it was cow's milk. Thereupon, he brought 660 mls. of such milk from accused No. 3 The statutory formalities under the Act were complied with and one of the three sealed bottles was sent to the Public Analyst from whom the report was received that (a) the milk was not cow's but buffalo's milk; (b) the fat deficiency was 16.3% and the milk contained 17.8% of added water. A prosecution ensued, the Food Inspector was examined and cross-examined and a charge was framed after the accused were questioned and their written statements filed into Court. The charge read :

(3.) The state appealed for enhancement of the sentence and the High Court acceded and quashed the trial Court sentence in allowance of the appeal and enhanced the punishment to six months' imprisonment plus fine of Rs.500/- each, the firm itself (A-1) being awarded a fine only.