STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. GANGADHAR ABARAO MANKAPE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent, Gangadhar Abarao Mankape, who gave his occupation as student, was tried along with another accused by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Aurangabad, for offences punishable under sections 10(1) read with 16(1)(c) and (1)(d) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The case against the respondent was that he was a servant of M/s. Jansewa Milk Dairy belonging to accused No. 2 and that he was found selling buffalos milk near Maroti Temple at Padampura in Aurangabad. The Food Inspector along with two panchas visited the place at about 7.15 a.m. on July 6, 1977. It is alleged that accused No. 1 respondent who was then found selling milk refused to sell sample of milk to the Food Inspector who demanded the same from accused No. 1. According to the prosection, this amounted to preventing the Food Inspector from purchasing the sample and offences punishable under sections 10(1) read with sections 16(1)(c) and (1)(d) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

(2.) On a consideration of the evidence, the learned Magistrate found the respondent guilty of the aforesaid offences on his recording a finding that the respondent refused to sell the milk to the complainant, Food Inspector.

(3.) The respondent challenged this conviction by filing an appeal in the Sessions Court at Aurangabad. The learned Additional sessions Judge disagreed with the view taken by the Magistrate and held that the prosecution had failed to establish that the respondent was selling milk or that he had refused to give the sample of the said milk to the food Inspector. He also held that even if the prosecution were to establish its case that the accused had refused to sell the milk it would not amount to an offence in law because what is required to be established by the prosecution is preventing the Food Inspector from taking a sample and not merely refusing to sell the sample. In this view of the matter, by his judgment and order dated November 20, 1978, the learned Additional Session Judge allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Magistrate and acquitted the accused. This acquittal is challenged by the State in this appeal.