RATANSI HIRJI JAIN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, hereinafter referred to as "the accused", was prosecuted in Criminal Case No. 169 of 1978 in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate of Kulaba at Alibag for an offence punishable under section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, hereinafter called "the Act", and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months. He was also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In default of the payment of fine, rigorous imprisonment for three months was stipulated. The prosecution case was, as far as it can be made out from the complaint filed and the deposition of the Food Inspector, that the accused sold to the Food Inspector 900 grammes of adulterated chocolates (milk toffee) in contravention of section 7 of the Act. In particular the case of the prosecution was that the sample which was taken from the accused when analysed, contained ash insoluble in dilute hydrochloric acid of more than 0.2 per cent by weight, thus contravening Rule A. 25.02 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, hereinafter referred to as "the Rules". The defence of the accused was manifold, one of which was that what was old to the Food Inspector was not mile toffee but chocolate.

(2.) The learned trial Magistrate convicted the accused and sentenced him as mentioned above. The accused preferred an appeal, being Criminal Appeal No. 100 of 1978, which was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge of Raigad at Alibag by his judgment and order dated 18th of November, 1981, which is the subject-matter of challenge in this petition supported before me by the learned Advocate Mr. Ganatra.

(3.) Mr. Ganatra has challenged the conviction on several grounds. However, it is not necessary to refer to all of them because after hearing him and the learned Public Prosecutor Mr. S.B. Patil I am satisfied that the petitioner must succeed on the ground that what was sold to the Food Inspector was not milk toffee, as found by the two courts below, but it was chocolate for which no standards have been prescribed under the rules. Mr. Ganatra has taken me through the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge as also through the relevant evidence. Mr. Apte, the Food Inspector who took the samples from the factory of the accused, has mentioned that on 19th July, 1977 at noon time he visited the factory along with two Panchas. The accused himself was present. He entered one room in which separate trays of hard-boiled confectionary, milk chocolate and Lacto-bonbon were found kept stored. The Food Inspector has further mentioned that there were in all five items of the confectionary. He took samples of all the five and thereafter the Food Inspector has proceeded to mention "the present case relates to the taking of samples of milk chocolates". Thereafter the Food Inspector has in unmistakable terms further mentioned I demanded of him to sell to me for the purpose of analysis 900 grammes of chocolates (milk toffee)......" From the report of the Public Analyst it is also seen that what was sent to him for the purpose of analysis was chocolates (milk toffees).