STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. R.S. THAKKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the State against the acquittal of the non -applicants accused under the provisions of Section 16(1) read with Section 7(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The allegations against the accused were that accused No. 1 was a licensee and a partner of an eating house named Cafe Thakkar located in Port area, Bombay. Accused No. 2 was1 the servant in the shop. On September 18, 1970 at about 11.30 a.m Food Inspector, Ramchandra Rajaram Kumar purchased for analysis 600 grams of curd and sent one part thereof following the procedure by adding formalin, for analysis. The prosecution alleged that the report of the public analyst found that the sample contained 16.7 per cent, of fat deficiency. On receipt of this report the steps to prosecute the present accused were taken.

(2.) THE defence of the accused had been of denial including that such curd was not sold by him. The learned Magistrate has accepted the evidence of the Food Inspector and also considered the evidence of the panch. It is further found that public analyst noticed formalin and after analysis he made a report exh. E. From that report the learned Magistrate concluded that it was satisfactorily established that the curd was sold and that it was below the standards prescribed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. However, the learned Magistrate took the view that the provisions of Rules 17 and 18 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules have been infringed and that the accused were entitled to acquittal.

(3.) THE accused filed an application under Section 13(2) on September 27, 1971 for sending his sample to the Director of the Central Food Laboratory. The learned Magistrate after satisfying himself about the condition of seal etc., despatched the same and received a report or a communication from that authority to say that the sample was highly decomposed, and was not fit for analysis. The Director of the Central Food Laboratory stated that the parcel of curd was actually received by his office on October 19, 1971, but could not be analysed being highly decomposed. All these dates have some relevance because of the controversy raised in this appeal.