STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. REVACHAND SANMUKHDAS RAMCHANDANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent No. 1 Revachand Sanmukhadas Ramchandani is a manufacturer in milk ice-candies at Miraj. He was prosecuted by the Food Inspector-respondent No. 2---Babasaheb Gunvantrao Chavan under section 7(1) read with section 16(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, on the basis of the following allegations :

(2.) Respondent No. 2 is empowered by the Government of Maharashtra to Act as Food Inspector within the Miraj Municipal limits. On January 29, 1971, at about 8.45 a.m. he visited the shop of the accused and gave identity as Food Inspector. He served notice in form No. VI purchased for analysis 900 grams of kulfi for Rs. 1-25. In the presence of the panchas sample was collected in three dry empty bottles and formalin in adequate quantity was added to each bottle. The bottles were then labelled and sealed. A panchanama was also drawn. One sealed bottle was given to the accused and his signature was obtained on a receipt. One bottle was sent to Public Analyst and he reported that the sample did not conform to the standard of milk ice-candy or kulfi under P.F.A. Rules and was adulterated. That is how, the accused was prosecuted. The accused pleaded not guilty. He admitted that the complainant-respondent No. 2---went to his shop, gave his identity and served notice in From No. VI and purchased sample of Kulfi manufactured by him for sale. He also admitted that the sample was collected in the manner prescribed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and Rules. He, however, contended that the complainant-respondent No. 2 was not duly qualified to Act as Food Inspector on the date on which he took the sample, that is, January 29, 1971, and on the date of his appointment. He, therefore, contended that he had no power to take sample under section 10 and the prosecution was illegal. The learned Magistrate upheld the contention of the accused. Although he recorded a finding against him on the second point with regard to the adulteration as " not proved " in the body of the judgment in paragraph 6, having regard to the admissions of the accused, he observed as follows :---

(3.) In the absence of any such material to show that respondent No. 2 was working as a Sanitary Inspector for a minimum period on one year or that he received training in one of the Laboratories mentioned above, the Court cannot recognise respondent No 2 as a Food Inspector within the meaning of the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act for any purpose. Merely because the State Government or the Municipality described him as a Food Inspector, he cannot become Food Inspector. He can become Food Inspector in the eyes of law only if he fulfils the definition and the requirements of the law. If the requirements are not fulfilled, it is necessary for the prosecutor or the Food Inspector to prove satisfactorily that the Food Inspector is a Food Inspector within the meaning of the definition of the Food Adulteration Act, 1954. Respondent No. 2 has not cared to produce any evidence that he is such. The learned Magistrate was, therefore, quite right in holding that the prosecution lodged by him was incompetent.