STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. OMPRAKASH BULKHIDAS AGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 13th April, 1979, passed by the learned Sessions Judge Sangli in Cri. Appeal No. 102 of 1978, allowing the appeal from judgment and Order dated 27th October, 1978, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, F.C. Miraj convicting the present respondents of the offence under section 7(i) read with section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as the said Act) and sentencing them to suffer R.I. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, and setting aside this conviction and sentence awarded by the learned Magistrate.

(2.) The facts have been stated in detail by the learned Sessions Judge in his judgment and it is not necessary to reproduce them. Briefly stated, the prosecution case was that the accused No. 1 Omprakash Agarwal is a licence holder of a canteen at the S.T. Stand, Miraj and the accused No. 2 Suresh Omprakash Agarwal is son of the accused No. 1, who was running the said canteen. On 21-2-1977, the Food Inspector, Sangli, visited the canteen and took samples of Rava after following the necessary procedure. One of the samples of Rava was sent to the public analyst and the report of public analyst Ex. 41 was received. The Rava was found adulterated. Thereafter after obtaining the necessary sanction for prosecution of the accused, both the accused were prosecuted for the offence punishable under section 7(i) read with section 16(1)(a)(i) of the said Act. The accused were supplied with a copy of the report of the public analyst on 19th July, 1977. On 22nd July, 1977, the accused moved the trial Court for sending a sample of Rava to the Central Food Laboratory at Calcutta. Accordingly a sample was sent and a report Ex. 16 was received from the Director of Central Food Laboratory. That report differed from the report of the Public Analyst that the Central Food Laboratory did not find iron filing which the public analyst had found and secondly the Public Analyst and found 20 number of rodent hair and excreta per kg. while the Central Food Laboratory found 12 number of rodent hair and excreta per kg. Thereafter the charge was amended and on the amended charge the accused were tried. The learned trial Magistrate found both the accused guilty and convicted and sentenced them as stated above. In appeal the learned Sessions Judge, Sangli found that the charge was not properly proved and, therefore, he allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the accused.

(3.) The State feeling aggrieved with the acquittal of the accused preferred this appeal.