RAJARAM ALAIS VITHOBA KANEKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 20.7.2006 recorded by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhandara, convicting the applicant for contravention of the provisions of Rule 32(b) and (3) and Rule 50 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 punishable under Section 16(i)(a)(ii) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, and ultimately sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months, the present revision was filed.

(2.) In support of the application, Mr. Wahane learned counsel for the applicants argued that notice under Section 13(2) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was admittedly not served on the applicants. He has shown me the postal envelop that was produced on the record of the trial Court which shows that service could not be effected on the applicant because he was absent on all dates when the postman had gone to him and finally the postman returned the envelop making endorsement that he was absent. That is also a finding that is recorded by the trial Court in para 16 of the impugned judgment of the trial Court. The trial court has however answered this submission by saying that no prejudice was caused to the applicant/accused and that is why it rejected the said submission.

(3.) Another charge against the applicant was that he did not have the licence of manufacturing Garam Masala at the time when the sample was taken. The counsel submitted that the licence for the earlier period admittedly was available. It was not renewed during the period when the sample was taken, but application was made and the licence was renewed by the department. This is not a case of complete absence of licence. He, therefore, urged this Court to set aside the finding recorded by the courts below.