STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. BHARAT SHANKAR TAPKIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the State of Bombay from an order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Poona, whereby the learned Judge has acquitted Bharat Shankar Tapkir, original accused, of an offence under Section 4(1) (c), Bombay Prevention of Adulteration Act.

(2.) The facts of the case which gave rise to the prosecution of the accused may now briefly be stated. Raghunath Jagannath Joglekar, who is the Food Inspector, was on duty on 24th July, 1951. At about 8-30 in the morning on that date he saw the accused going along on a bicycle. On the handle of the bicycle there was a charwi, whose capacity was three seers. In that charwi there was milk and the quantity of milk was about one seer. On the same bicycle there was also another pot. There was milk therein also, and the quantity of that milk was about a seer and a half. Then on the carrier of the bicycle there was a brass pot with a capacity of seven seers. That pot was brimful with milk. The Pood Inspector examined the milk from the charwi. When he questioned the accused in the matter, the accused said that it was mixed milk of cow and buffalo. The Pood Inpoector suspected adulteration. So he applied lactometer test. Then he told the accused that he wanted to purchase milk, and the accused quoted the rate of a rupee for a seer and a half. There were three empty bottles which were shown to the accused, and into each one of these bottles the accused put six ounces of milk. Then the bottles were sealed. One sealed bottle was given over to the accused and the other was sent to the Public Analyst for examination. The result of the examination by the Public Analyst was that the milk had 32.2 per cent, water content, 4.1 per cent, fat content and 6.1 per cent, solids other than milk fat. Upon these facts the accused was prosecuted. He was convicted by the Special Municipal Magistrate F.C., Poona; but on appeal he was acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge, Poona. It is against that order of acquittal that the present appeal is filed by the State of Bombay.

(3.) During the course of his judgment the learned Sessions Judge held that the accused had sold to the Food Inspector milk which was not of the nature, substance and quality demanded by the Food Inspector. But he came to the conclusion that no prejudice was caused to the complainant Food Inspector by reason of the sale of milk to him by the accused. On the basis of that finding he ordered the acquittal of the accused. While holding that there was no prejudice to the Food Inspector by reason of the sale of milk to him by the accused, the learned sessions Judge said this: