STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. B B KOTHAVADE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State has preferred this appeal against the order of acquittal passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, of Malegaon on 9th of April, 1979 in Criminal Case No. 618 of 1973. By the said order the learned trial Magistrate acquitted the respondent, hereinafter referred to as "the accused", of the offence punishable under section 16(1)(a) read with section 7(i) and section 2(i)(c) of the Prevention of Foods Adulteration Act. According to the prosecution, the accused made a statutory sale of 450 grammes of what has been called Shahajira to the Food Inspector of Malegaon. The sample which was sent to the Public Analyst was found to contain nearly 75 per cent of extraneous matter. That at least is the report of the Public Analyst. On this basis the prosecution was launched against the accused. In support of its case the prosecution examined the Food Inspector and one of the panchas who was according to the prosecution a witness to the purchase of the sample and subsequent steps to be taken before sending the sample to the Public Analyst.

(2.) The learned trial Magistrate found that the panch examined as P.W. 2 did not support the Food Inspector in any of the particulars of the prosecution case. I have myself gone through the deposition of the panch (P.W. 2) and find that in the examination-in-chief itself he has not said anything which would corroborate the testimony of the Food Inspector. The learned trial Magistrate thought that such corroboration was necessary and since it was not forthcoming he acquitted the accused, as mentioned above.

(3.) Mr. Suryawanshi, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing in support of this appeal, has criticised the approach of the learned trial Magistrate by contending that in law it is not necessary that there there should be corroboration to the deposition of the Food Inspector if the case given out by the Food Inspector is found to be acceptable by the Court. In the instant case the learned trial Magistrate has, says Mr. Suryawanshi, put the card before the horse and without examining whether the Food Inspectors evidence is acceptable or not proceeded to reject it on the ground that there is no corroboration from the panch. If this were the only ground on which the order of acquittal could be passed, I would have examined the contentions of Mr. Suryawanshi in greater details. However, Mr. Ganatra, the learned Advocate appearing for the accused, has brought to my notice certain facts which make it impossible for me to interfere with the order of acquittal.