STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. ANILKUMAR SIDRAMAPPA NANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant-State of Maharashtra has challenged the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate F. C. Court No. 3, Solapur dated 3rd July 1991 passed below Exhibit 1 in criminal Misc. Application No. 7 of 1991. It is unfortunate that this revision application of 1991 had remained pending for more than nine years and even when the matter was notified for hearing for one reasons or the other, no progress was made even when the matter was notified before me as per the request made by learned Addl. Public Prosecutor Mr. Galeria, to enable him to get the instructions from the complainant Food Inspector, I had adjourned the matter.

(2.) I have heard Mr. Galeria the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor at length and during the hearing, he took me through the order under challenge as well as the documents from the original record as the record and proceedings are called for from the trial Court. During the hearing, I was also taken through the relevant provisions of Food Adulteration Act and Rules as well as the Notification issued in respect of the restriction of using the 'brominated vegetable oil' (hereinafter referred and called as "b. V. O. ") as well as the report of the Public Analyst in respect of the articles seized by the Complainant Food Inspector.

(3.) MR. Galeria the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has vehemently urged that the learned magistrate has committed error in deciding the application of the Food Inspector as no opportunity was given to the complainant to prove the case against the accused and without taking cognizance of the complaint as per order dated 4-7-1991 as per the provisions of section 190 (1) (a) of the Code of Criminal procedure, for contravening the provisions of Rules 60 and 61 of the Food Adulteration Rules 1955 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'said Rules') punishable under section 16 read with section 17 of the said Act, and the learned Magistrate has disposed of the complaint without taking any cognizance on the complaint bearing Regular Criminal Case No. 91 of 1991 and by filing separate revision application, the applicant has challenged the said order in criminal revision application No. 209 of 1991 and the order of the learned Magistrate dated 4th July 1991 in Regular Criminal Case No. 90 of 1991, wherein the learned Magistrate has also simultaneously not taken cognizance and the said order is also challenged by preferring application no. 192 of 1991. It is further found that application being Misc. Application No. 1807 of 1991 filed by the Applicant in criminal revision application no. 181 of 1991 wherein the Applicant-complainant has prayed for stay of the operation of the order passed by the learned Magistrate directing that Rasana Orange and Rasana Mango Ripe Soft Drink Concentrate to be returned to the Respondent. While taking me through the original records and proceedings including the report of the Public Analyst in respect of sample seized from the Respondent no. 1. it is the contention of MR. Galeria that the learned Magistrate was not right in disposing of the application by returning the seized articles to the Respondent and further the learned Magistrate was not right in not taking cognizance against the Respondent and there is prima facie case against the accused for the offence under the Act. MR. Galeria submitted that as per the Complainant, he has seized sample of articles from the Respondent under the panchanama and in presence of panchas, after seizing the said articles, the same were sent for public analysis as contemplated under the Act and as per the report of the Public Analyst, it is found that sample contained B. V. O. which is unfit for human consumption and in view f the report of the Public Analyst, there is prima facie case against the accused and he accordingly, submitted that the order of the learned magistrate passed on a complaint filed by the Complainant by not taking cognizance, deserves to be set aside. He inturn, submitted that the order passed by the learned magistrate on an application filed by the complainant by returning the seized articles in favor of Respondent, is also not legal and deserves to be set aside.