KAMLAKAR NARAYAN BHAMRE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. Rule was issued on 17th January, 2001. The revision applicant questions conviction in Regular Criminal Case No. 220 of 1993 for offence under Sections 7(i) read with Section 2(ia)(a), 2(ia)(j) and 2(ia)(m) under Section 7(v) read with Sections 23 and 28 punishable under Section 16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short "Act") directing him to undergo R.I. for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default, R.I. for one month, by order dated 11th June, 1998 recorded by learned Judicial Magistrate F.C., Sakri. In Appeal, conviction was confirmed.

(2.) Complainant--Food Inspector had been to the shop of applicant wherein, he purchased 600 gm of salli-supari under receipt. Notice under Section 14(a) of Act was served upon the applicant. Three samples were kept in three plastic bags.

(3.) The sanction was asked from Jt. Commissioner in terms of Rule 20 of the Act, however, it was accorded by in-charge Officer, it is not permissible. There could not be a complaint based on said sanction. The other point raised is, the complainant/Food Inspector had no powers to visit or draw the samples as raid was on 29th January, 1993 while, the notification in respect of complainant - Food Inspector was dated 21st September, 1993. The in-charge Officer, who has accorded sanction, is not demonstrated to be a sanctioning authority in terms of Section 20 of the Act. Section 9 of the Act provides that only Central Government or State Government may, by notification in the official gazette, appoint some person to be Food Inspector. There should be specific authorisation or nomination in favour of the complainant. The record illustrates, as stated earlier, on the date of raid, there was no power vested in the complainant - Food Inspector to effect the raid.