NAVODAYA VIDYALAYA, GADCHIROLI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant is facing prosecution under Food Adulteration Act and seeks the quashing of prosecution.

(2.) Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, ghot. District - Gadchiroli is a residential school. The applicant at the relevant time was the Principal of the said school and was arrayed as accused No. 2 in the complaint case. Respondent No. 2 was the Store Keeper and was arrayed as accused No. 1. On 03-07-1997 the food Inspector visited the Store Room of the said school where accused No. l namely the store Keeper was present. There were various food articles in the store room. The Food inspector demanded and purchased 450 gms. of groundnut oil from 15 kg. sealed and packed tin. The Food Inspector paid Rs. 22/- as the cost of the groundnut oil and obtained a cash memo from the Store Keeper. It was found that the said sample of the oil did not confirm to the standard of groundnut oil. After the completion of formalities Regular Criminal Case No. 277 of 1998 was filed against 4 accused persons including the petitioner before the Chief judicial Magistrate, Gadchiroli for the offences punishable under Section 7 (i) read with Section 2 (i-a) (a) punishable under Section 16 (i) (a) (ii) and Section 7 (i) read with Section 2 (i-a) (m) punishable under Section 16 (l) (a) (i) and section 7 (V) read with Rule 50 punishable under Section 16 (l) (a) (ii) read with Section 17 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the school is a residential school and it caters to the needs of the students. The articles are stored in the store room for preparing meals to be supplied to the students. No article is intended to be sold to any one. He submitted that the transaction in question cannot be called sale as such, as to attract the provisions of Section 7 of the Food Adulteration act. He submitted that the store keeper gave the sample of the groundnut oil to the Food inspector as the same was demanded to him by the Food Inspector. The Store Keeper never intended to sell the groundnut oil to the Food inspector. The Store Keeper accepted the money and gave the cash memo as the same was demanded by the Food Inspector. In fact there was no intention on the part of the Store keeper to sell the groundnut oil. In the circumstances of the case the learned counsel for the applicant urged that the provisions of food Adulteration Act are not at all attracted to the facts of the case. In support of his submission the learned counsel for the applicant relied on: managaldas Raghavji Ruparel (In cri. App. No. 57 of 1963) 2. Daryaomal and another (In Cri App. No. 113 of 1963) Vs. State of Maharashtra and another, A. I. R. 1966 Supreme Court 128, wherein it has been observed as under: