STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. EKNATH BAPUSAHEB RAIJADHAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this Appeal, the State is challenging the Judgment and Order dated 11.10.2004 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kolhapur in Regular Crime Case No. 325 of 2002 (old Reg. Crime Case No. 72 of 1994). By the impugned Judgment, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has acquitted the Respondent from the offence under the Prevention of Food Alteration Act, 1954.

(2.) The prosecution case is that the complainant A.S. Kulkarni, who was at the relevant time working as a Food Inspector along with staff and panchas had visited M/s. Vikas Ice Cream and Cold Drink Factory run by the Respondent at about 3.00 pm of 20.10.1993. According to the complainant, he inspected the premises and obtained 600 grams of ice-candy from the establishment of the Respondent and the said ice-candy was melted in a pot which was cleaned and dried. It was then divided into three parts which were sealed and one of the parts was sent to the Public Analyst and other to the Local Health Authority on 21.10.1993. According to the complainant, the Respondent refused to accept the price of the ice-candy or to issue a receipt/invoice and also refused to sign the panchanama and the copy of the Form VI under Section 14-A of the said Act. The Public Analyst by his report dated 12.11.1993 found that the sample was containing Saccharine and dulcin which are prohibited under the said Act and the Rules thereunder. According to the complainant, substance dulcin is carcinogenic in character. The complainant then sent a proposal to the Joint Commissioner (Pune Division) Food and Drugs Administration, Maharashtra State for obtaining consent under Section 20 of the said Act. The Joint Commissioner accorded the consent on 16.08.1994 after which the complaint came to be filed against the Respondent under the relevant Section before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Kolhapur.

(3.) The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate framed charge for the offence punishable under Section 7(i) read with Section 2(ia) (a), 2(ia) (b), 2(ia)(c) and 2(ia) (m) and Section 7(v) read with Rule 47 of the Rules to which the Appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. According to the Appellant, he was not present in his factory at the time of visit of the complainant and the sample was not taken from his factory.