STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. MOHIDDIN GAIBI CHOUGULE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal appeal is filed by the appellant State of Maharashtra under section 378 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Cri. P. C.), being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 23rd December, 1985 passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No. 1, Kolhapur in Criminal Case No. 157 of 1981. By the impugned judgment, the trial Court acquitted the respondents/original accused Mohiddin Gaibi Chougule for offence punishable under section 7 (i) read with section 16 (1) (a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and Rules thereunder, as amended.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution is as follows : the Food Inspector Mr. B. K. Karyappa went along with Mahadeo Anna Alase (the panch witness) and paid visit to the milk dairy of the respondent/accused known as M/s. Shetkari Seva Dugdhalaya situated at CTS No. 1586 in C ward at Kolhapur. He paid his visit on 9th March, 1981 at about 3. 35 p. m. Thereafter, he disclosed his identity to the accused, that he was a Food Inspector. The accused was present in the premises and was looking after his business. Mr. Karyappa inspected the premises in the presence of panch witness, and it was found that buffalo milk was stored for sale in the said premises. The Food Inspector purchased 660 ml. of buffalo milk for the purpose of test and analysis, and paid amount of Rs. 2/- as the price of the said buffalo milk, and obtained receipt from the accused in respect of the payment. Then, Food Inspector gave intimation to the accused in Form No. VI No. 474. He also issued notice to accused under section 14 (a) of the Act. The buffalo milk which was purchased by the Food Inspector was equally divided into three parts, and each part was filled-in each of three dry, clean and empty glass bottles. 18 drops of formalin were added in each bottle as preservative. These bottles were then sealed as per the provision laid down in the Act and the Rules thereunder, as amended up-to-date. Sample labels were pasted on the bottles with a paper slip having signature of Local Health Authority bearing No. KMC (ii) Kolhapur No. A-1950. Thereafter, signatures were obtained so as to have part of the signature on the paper slip and part of the signature on the wrapper. Then all the three sample parts were taken by the Food Inspector in his possession. Detail panchanama on the spot was made as per the situation which was prevailing at the premises. On 10th March, 1981, the Food Inspector sent one sealed sample part bearing Sample No. BKK/19/81 to the Public Health Laboratory, Kolhapur, for the purpose of analysis along with the original memorandum in Form No. VII, under covering letter by hand delivery. Duplicate copy of Form No. VII, so also, the specimen impression was sent under covering letter by hand delivery and receipts of the same were obtained from the Public Analyst, Kolhapur. On the same day, the remaining two sample parts along with two copies of memorandum in Form No. VII under covering letter, and two copies of specimen seal impression under the covering letter were also sent by hand delivery and receipts thereof were obtained from the Local Health Authority, Kolhapur. Further, the Public Analyst, Kolhapur sent report in respect of sample of buffalo milk bearing Sample No. BKK/19/81 vide report No. 1005 dated 1st April, 1981 from Local Health Authority, Kolhapur on 10th April, 1981. The Public Analyst, in his report, declared the result of analysis as below:

(3.) THE prosecution story further is that, after the complaint was filed by the complainant/food Inspector in the Court, process came to be issued against the accused in pursuance to which, the accused appeared in the Court and furnished bail. Evidence of the complainant Mr. R. B. Shete and Mr. B. K. Karyappa, the Food Inspectors, before charge was recorded. Opportunity was given to the accused to cross-examine them. Thereafter charge against the accused was framed for the offence under section 7 (i) punishable under section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Act. When the charge was read over and explained to him in Marathi, the accused pleaded not guilty, and claimed to be tried. His defence was that of total denial. However, he contended by way of defence that the Food Inspector had not stirred the milk or had made the milk homogeneous before the sample was taken by him. It was further his case that no information to Local Health Authority about the sample, which was sent to the Public Analyst, was given. It was also further contended by him that notice under section 13 (2) of the Act was not served upon him as alleged by the prosecution.