STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. DATTA RAMNATH NAIK SHRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the State against the order dated 8th January 1998 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ponda, acquitting the respondent in Criminal Case No. 44/n/1992, which had been filed under the provisions of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as said Act ).

(2.) THE charge against the respondent/accused was that on 21st November 1991 at about 3. 15 p. m. when the concerned Food Inspector visited the shop of the respondent and when he collected the sample of groundnut oil, on analysis it turned out to be oil from cotton seeds. The respondent was, therefore, charged for misbranding the food item under the provisions of section 2 (ix) (c) read with section 2 (v) (a) of the said Act and was, accordingly prosecuted under section 16 (a) (i) thereof.

(3.) THE appellant examined three witnesses, that is, the Food Inspector Rajiv Korde (P. W. 1), then, the Public Analyst (P. W. 2) and the panch witness (P. W. 3 ). As far as P. W. 3 is concerned, he turned hostile, though he admitted having signed the panchanama. The defence of the respondent in his statement under section 313 Cri. P. C. was that of total denial. The learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, who heard the matter, found an infirmity with respect to the manner in which the sample was forwarded for analysis inasmuch as, according to him, there was no evidence on record to show that for two days, that is, from 21st November 1991 to 22nd November 1991, with whom the samples were placed. But, that apart, the learned Judge accepted the submission of the defence that there was a possibility of a mistake. The defence taken by the respondent/accused was that the Food Inspector came to the shop suddenly. He did not ask the respondent/accused to sell a particular item, namely, groundnut oil. The Food Inspector himself collected the sample and then forwarded it for analysis later. As canvassed by Mr. Lotlikar, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent/accused in this Court, the accused was under the impression that what was collected was groundnut oil and it was only when the report of the analyst was received that he realized that it was not groundnut oil but was oil from cotton seeds. The learned trial Judge in paragraph 9 of his order has in terms observed as follows :-