STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. BABURAO DAGA SURYAVANSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal and revision are directed against an order of acquittal recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nasik in relation to complaint under sections 16 r/w, section 7(1)(iv) of the Prevention of Fool Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

(2.) Petitioner in the revision aforementioned is a Food Inspector of the Nasik Municipal Council. He had on 21 Nov. 1978 gone to the Delhi Darwaja area of Nasik city where he came across Baburao Daga Suryavanshi (accused), selling milk kept in a bucket. The Inspector sent for two panchas and in their presence purchased a sample of the milk vended by Suryavanshi. The quantity purchased was 660 mls. The same was divided into 3 equal parts and these were insented into two separate dried clean bottles. Preservative was added to the samples and the bottles were tightly corked and duly labelled. A panchanama was drawn up. One of the samples was sent to the Public Analyst of Pune. The certificate issued by the Public Analyst is at Eth. 29. It is to the effect that the sample examined by him contained 43.3% aided water and that it did not conform to the standard prescribed for buffalo's milk as per item A 11.01.11 of Appendix .B to the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules of 1955. After obtaining the requisite sanction, the inspector filed a complaint against Suryavanshi in the Court of a Magistrate ai Nasik. The learned Magistrate found Suryavanshi guilty under section 7(l)(vi) of the Act and sentenced him to suffer R.I. for 3 months and to pay a pie of Rs. 500.00. Non payment of fine was to entail additional R.I. for a month. Against the conviction and sentence recorded in relation to him, Suryavanshi carried an appeal to the Sessions Court at Nasik. The Addl. Sessions Judge who heard the appeal felt that there was a violation of Rues 17 and 18 of the Rules framed under the Act and that inasmuch as these rules were mandatory, their infraction entitled Suryavanshi to an acquittal. The Food Inspector was not impleaded as a party to the appeal. He has impugned the acquittal without joining him as a party to the appeal vide the revision aforementioned. The State Government has challenged the acquittal in the appeal.

(3.) So far as the failure to implead the Food Inspector in the appeal before the Sessions Court is concerned, the petitioner is on good ground in contending that he was a necessary party to the said appeal and that his non-joinder renders the verdict of acquittal, unsustainable. But the verdict is the subject of the appeal and therefore, the revision does not in fact survive. The rule issued therein is thus discharged.