RADHELAL JAGANNATH BITHOLIA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant was prosecuted by the Corporation of the City of Nagpur for an offence under section 7 (i) read with section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, vide Criminal Case No. 127/1977. Shri Nimgade, Judicial Magistrate, First Class (Corporation) Nagpur found the applicant guilty of the offence and sentenced hint to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months and a fine of Rs. 500, in default further rigorous imprisonment for one month. The applicant thereafter preferred Criminal Appeal No. 46/1980 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, who confirmed the conviction and sentence and dismissed the appeal. It is against these two concurrent findings of conviction and sentence that the applicant has moved this Court by this revision.

(2.) The case of the Food Inspector in the complaint was that the accused carries on business of milk vendor. That on 22-2-1977 the accused applicant was carrying two cans of milk on a bicycle in the city of Nagpur. The complainant had intercepted him at Wanjari Nagar and had taken milk sample from the cans of the applicant-accused. It was the case of the Food Inspector that he had followed the procedure as prescribed under the Food Adulteration Act and handed over one sample bottle to the applicant, and the other was sent to the Public Analyst along with the specimen seals etc., as prescribed. On receipt of the Public Analyst's report that the milk was adulterated, he secured sanction from the concerned authorities and filed the complaint.

(3.) After the charge sheet was filed the Food Inspector examined himself as P. W. 1 and one panch witness (P. W. 2) and produced the Public Analyst's report regarding the milk sample and closed the case. The defence of the accused was that he is not a milk dealer ; that he was not taking milk for sale but was taking the milk for the birth day ceremony at his brother's place. He also contended that his right under section 13 (2) of the Act was frustrated because the sample was allegedly taken on 22-2-1977 while the charge sheet was put up on 22/9/1977 i. e. more than six months after the date of sample. He further submitted that the accused was served with summons on 23/4/1978 i. e. one year two months after the date of the sample.