STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. CHANDRAKANT DAULATRAO CHAVAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal challenges the Judgment and Order passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No. 1, Kolhapur dated Feb. 28,1986 in Regular Criminal Case No. 173 of 1981. The Respondent was prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section-7(i)(v) read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the Food Inspector Shri. R.T. Patil-Complainant alongwith one H.S.Hajare and Pias visited M/s. Ruchira Hotel situated at C.T.S. No. 1407, C Ward, at Kolhapur on 15.7.1981 at 1.30 p.m. At that time, it was noticed that the Respondent was present in the hotel and was selling food articles. The Complainant disclosed his identity as Food Inspector. He purchased the sample of 1200 gms of mutton biryani for the purpose of analysis as per the notice in Form No.VI. Necessary formalities were complied with thereafter of dividing sample in three equal portions and of sealing and forwarding it for analysis. After the report was received from the Public Analyst indicating that the sample was found to be of sub-standard quality, the complainant sought sanction from the sanctioning authority and then proceeded to prosecute the Respondent for the alleged offence. The Prosecution examined five witnesses in support of its case. The Trial Court on analyzing the evidence on record, inter alia, found that, there has been non-compliance of Section 11(i)(c) of the Act as no intimation was sent to the Local Health Authority. Besides, the Trial Court found that, there has been non compliance of Rule 14 and that the evidence on record does not support the prosecution case that the bottles in which the sample was kept were clean and made dry. Accordingly, there has been non compliance of Rule 14 for which, it would be fatal to the prosecution case. The Trial Court has also addressed itself to the other aspects of the matter to find that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt beyond the reasonable doubt against the Respondent-Accused. Accordingly, the Trial Court by impugned Judgment and order acquitted the Respondent for the alleged offence.

(3.) HAVING considered the rival submissions and having gone through the records and the Judgment of the Trial Court, I have no hesitation in observing that the appeal should fail. The first contention raised on behalf of the Appellant about the finding returned by the Trial Court regarding the non compliance of Section 11(i)(c) of the Act, to my mind, there is some substance in that grievance. The Trial Court in Para 7 of its Judgment has noted that the admitted position in the light of evidence of P.W.No.1 is that he did not give intimation to the Local Health Authority as required by the said provision. This finding obviously over looks the evidence that has been brought on record by the prosecution. P.W. No.1 in Paragraph No. 1 during his examination-in-chief has deposed (at Page 24) that ..