B M JINGER Vs. RAMESHKUMAR LALJIBHAI KATHANIYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) .Food Inspector, Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "the complainant") has preferred this appeal being aggrieved with the order of acquittal recorded by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad in Criminal Case No. 565 of 1988 on 30-3-1991 wherein the accused were tried for an offence under Sec. 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") which is made punishable under Sec. 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act.

(2.) The facts leading to the present application as it appears from the record, briefly are as under. (Only a part of the Judgment approved for the reporting is published.) The Food Inspector, PW 1, Shri B.M. Jinger, appointed as Food Inspector by the State Government by Notification dated 6-10-1996 vide Exh. 9, visited the shop of the vendor, Rameshkumar Laljibhai Kathania, respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as "accused No. 1") on 25-11-1987 at about 11.00 AM with his Peon Alimiya. He called one Shantilal Shah to render his services as a Panch. In the shop the complainant found 7 sealed containers of groundnut oil of "Dharti" brand. After removing the seal of one of the containers the Food Inspector collected the sample from accused no. 1 for analysis under an intimation to the accused, which has been signed by accused vide Exh. 11. Payment was made for the quantity of groundnut oil, namely 400 grams for which voucher was issued by accused No. 1, which has been signed by accused No. 1 as well as the Panch. The cash memo which has been signed similarly has been produced on record vide Exh. 13. It appears that after following the procedure laid down under the provisions contained in the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules") the complainant collected sample and divided it in three equal parts and collected in dry and clean bottles which were sealed in accordance with the Rules. After completing the Panchnama and sealing the bottles as per the Rules the complainant also seized a tin seal used for sealing the container, which was broken open for collecting the sample. Accused No. 1 stated to the Food Inspector that he has purchased sealed container from Thakkar Liladhar Vaghjibhai and for that purpose he also produced a bill with a warranty, the original of which was returned and xerox has been produced on record of the case vide Exh. 10. It appears that accused No. 1 was dealing in the name of Umiyaji Oil Corporation, and bill, Exh. 10 was issued by Thakkar Liladhar Vaghjibhai. The bill is dated 24-11-1987 communicating that 11 packed containers of 15 KGs. each were supplied to accused no. 1 at the rate of Rs. 440.00 each. In the bill the manufacturer has given warranty which reads as under :

(3.) The accused No. 2 has been nominated under sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 17 to be in charge of and responsible to the firm for the conduct of the business of the firm, namely Messrs Thakkar Liladhar Vaghjibhai. Exh. 17 is a xerox copy of the Resolution in this behalf and accused no. 2 has accepted to be a nominee of Messrs Thakkar Liladhar Vaghjibhai. On 2-6-1987 it is stated by him that no further resolution has been passed in this behalf. Along with Exh. 17 nomination of persons by the company as per Rule 12B in From VIII, duly signed by the partner of the firm and present accused No. 2 accepting the nomination were enclosed. Same has been accepted by the Local (Health) Authority. It is Messrs Thakkar Liladhar Vaghjibhai, the manufacturer, supplied article of food, namely, groundnut oil to accused no. 1 in sealed tins, with warranty. Accused No. 2 came to be prosecuted being a nominee of Messrs Thakkar Liladhar Vaghjibhai.