MAHARASHTRA GOVERNMENT Vs. RAJARAM DIGAMBER PADAMWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of acquittal, dated 14.3.2000, rendered by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kandhar, in R.C.C. No. 284 of 1995, thereby acquitting the respondent no.1 i.e. original accused no.1Rajaram Digamber Padamwar for the offences under Section 7(1) r/w Section 2(ia)(a) punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as, the said Act ) and also acquitting respondent no.2 i.e. original accused 2Mohammad Salim Haji Harun for committing breach of provision of Section 7(v) of the said Act and Rule of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as, the said Rules ) punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the said Act.

(2.) Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is as follows :It is alleged that on 27.4.1994 at about 12.45 p.m., accused no.1 sold the packets of adulterated turmeric powder of Taja Brand to PW1 Food Inspector M.S.Patil at Kandhar and after verification of chemical analysis thereof, the said turmeric power found to be adulterated, and as such thereby accused no.1 has contravened the provisions of Section 7(1) r/w Section 2(ia)(a) and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(ii) of the said Act. It is also alleged that respondent no.2 i.e. accused no.2 has manufactured the said adulterated turmeric power and distributed and sold it in packets in the market, more particularly through respondent no.1 and contravened the provisions under Section 7(v) of the said Act and Rule 44H of the said Rules punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the said Act. Accordingly, the allegations against accused no.1 are in respect of storage and selling of adulterated turmeric powder of Taja Brand and the allegation against respondent no.2 is that he is the manufacturer of the adulterated turmeric powder of Taja Brand , and therefore, they have committed the offences as afore stated.

(3.) Moreover, the complainant Food Inspector i.e. PW2 G.B.More is claimed to have sent all the papers to the Joint Commissioner, Food & Drugs Administration, Aurangabad under Section 20 of the Act and obtained the consent through the Assistant Commissioner, Food and Drugs Administration, Nanded for filing criminal case against the accused persons, and accordingly, complaint was filed against the accused before the court on 16.10.1995. It was registered as R.C.C. No. 284 of 1995. The said complaint discloses the name of the witnesses, such as (1) M.S.Patil, Food Inspector, Food and Drugs Administration, Buldhana; (2) Milind Suryakant Mahajan, r/o Shivaji Chowk, Kandhar; (3) G.G.Joshi, Assistant Commissioner, Food and Drugs Administration, M.S., Nanded; and (4) S.B.Kamble, Public Analyst, District Health Laboratory, Nanded. Thereafter, summons came to be issued against the accused persons and they appeared in the case. Thereafter, evidence before charge was recorded before the court and the prosecution examined in all two witnesses and the Trial Court framed the charge against the accused at Exh. 63 on 13.7.1998. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charges levelled against them and claimed to be tried.