STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. ASHISHKUMAR DINESHKUMAR PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed by the State impugning an order and judgment dated 21st July 2003 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pune, acquitting accused of charges under Section 7 (i) read with Section 2 (ia) (a), 2 (ia) (m) punishable under Section 16 (Penalties) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954 (PFA).

(2.) On 13th February 2020 since nobody was present in Court representing respondent, the Court appointed Ms. Spenta Havewala, an Advocate, as Amicus Curiae. Before I proceed with the case, I must express my appreciation for the assistance rendered and endeavour put forth by Ms. Spenta Havewala, learned Amicus Curiae, for it has been of immense value in rendering the judgment.

(3.) The learned Amicus submitted that the Court need not go into the facts of the case because it is settled law that the Food Inspector should take the samples in clean and dried containers or bottles. Ms. Havewala relied on a judgment of this Court in B.A. Samant V/s. The State of Maharshtra, 1968 SCC Online Bom 115 and submitted that the failure on the part of PW-1, the Food Inspector, to take samples in clean and dried bottles, which to his knowledge were clean and dried, would certainly affect the credibility of prosecution's case. Ms. Havewala pointed out that in his cross examination, PW-1, the Food Inspector, has admitted that he did not clean the sample bottles on spot. Ms. Havewala pointed out that though PW-1 says that on the previous day he verified that the sample bottles were clean and dried, also admits that his deposition that he verified the sample bottles was for the first time in his examination in chief. PW-2, who is the panch witness, says on 24 th November 2000, Food Inspector Joshi did not call him and told him to sign on some papers. PW-2 also says that the bottles were not cleaned in his presence and there were 2-3 seals on each sample bottle. Paragraphs 20 to 23 of B.A. Samant (supra) read as under :