STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. NATWARLAL NANABHAI SURATWALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) STATE being dissatisfied with the order passed by the Chief Judicial magistrate, Pune dated 8-10-1992 in Criminal Case No. 175 of 1989 acquitting the accused for the offences punishable under section 7 (1) read with Section 2 (ia) (a) and 7 (v) read with Rule 47 (1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules and punishable under Sections 16 and 17 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

(2.) THE facts in nutshell are that the Food inspector Shri P. B. Sobale, filed complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate against accused Nos. 1 to 6 being vendor, supplier and manufacturer of adulterated article Hira sugandhi Pan Masala as the said article does not conform with test as laid down in Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and Rules 1955. It is further clear from the complaint that Food Inspector Shri Sobale was appointed as Food Inspector and posted at pune. He visited the shop of the firm known as M/s. Hiralal Nanabhai Suratwala. Accused No. 1 is the vendor and acting partner of the said firm known as Hiralal nanabhai Suratwala. The said firm deals with business of stocking and sale of the food articles including Hira Sugandhi Pan masala. Accused No. 3 Jitendra Chandulal shah partner of the firm M/s. Shah kilachand Damodardas and Sons and this firm deals in wholesale business of food articles and the supplier of above food article i. e. Hira Sugandhi Pan Masala. Accused No. 5 Prabhakar Balasaheb Miraji is dealing in business of manufacturing of Hira Sugandhi pan Masala. Accused No. 6 is M/s. Hira trading Company i. e. the firm. The Food inspector visited the premises belonging to accused No. 1 firm in the month of March 1989 i. e at about 11. 30 am. He disclosed his identity and purchased 600 grams Hira sugandhi Pan Masala. A panch was with him. The Food Inspector has also disclosed his Intention that the food article being purchased was for sampling. The necessary formality of about sealing, packing was completed. He accordingly, paid an amount of rs. 60/ -. A receipt was obtained. A Notice under Section 14a was issued to the accused after complying necessary formalities. The panchnama was accordingly prepared. The seal of Local Health Authority was pasted and accordingly the sample was despatched to the Public Analyst on 9-3-1989. The remaining counterpart of the sample was sent to the Local Health Authority as the same was divided in three equal parts, a report of Public Analyst about the said sample was received on 13-4-1989 and Public Analyst has given opinion that the sample bearing Local Health Authority's Slip No. 7673 does not conform of the Prevention of food Adulteration Rules. The complainant food Inspector thereafter collected necessary information and documents and accordingly moved the concerned Authorities under Section 20 to prosecute the accused. The Joint Commissioner, Food and Drug administration has accordingly given sanction. It is also made clear in the complaint that the Food Inspector has given Intimation to the Local Health Authority about filing of complaint and the Local Health Authority thereafter complied with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration act. The counterpart of the sample was sent to the Central Food Laboratory and the report of the Central Food Laboratory is received and the said report shows saccharin, artificial sweetener i. e. in violation of rule 47 of the Food Adulteration Act. The accused being accordingly prosecuted. The evidence of the complainant was recorded before the charge. Certain documents are brought on record through the evidence. The charge was accordingly framed. The complainant thereafter again examined witnesses and Chief Judicial Magistrate after considering the evidence on record adduced by the prosecution concluded that the complainant has failed to comply with Rule 22a and 4 (a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules and accordingly acquitted the accused for which they were charged. The said order of acquittal passed by the Chief judicial Magistrate, Pune, is challenged by filing the present appeal.

(3.) IN the Appeal I heard Shri Adsule, APP for the State and Mr. Borulkar for the accused at length. At the outset it is necessary to made it clear that this being an appeal against acquittal and therefore, it is necessary to see whether there is any perversity in appreciating the evidence on record. Reference is also necessary to one authority reported in AIR 1979 SC 1324 : (1979 Cri LJ 1067), K. Lakshmana Rao v. The Public Prosecutor, State of Andhra pradesh wherein it is observed to the following effect: