STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. HARI VIRUMAL KARACHIWALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed by the State of Maharashtra against the Judgment and order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmednagar, on 11th August, 1986 in Regular Criminal Case No. 156/1984 acquitting the respondents/accused for an offence punishable under Sections 16 and 17 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 for offences under Sections 2 (ia) (i) read with Section 7 (i) of the Said Act. (Hereinafter referred to as "the Act" ).

(2.) THE prosecution against the respondents was initiated on the basis of complaint filed by Mr. D. K. Phadke, the Food Inspector, who visited the shop of M/s. Virumal Thakurdas Karachiwala, which is a partnership firm, original accused no. 3 of which original accused nos. 1 and 2 were partners. THE Food Inspector on his visit to the shop of the firm purchased three packets each weighing 200 grams of "icing Mix Pulver Sugar" from accused no. 1. Admittedly, the packets were manufactured by Twilitie Products (India), Nasik, of which respondent no. 4 Harban Singh was Proprietor. THE samples were separately labelled on the spot as per the procedure having signatures of panch and accused no. 1 on the seals and two packets were sent to Ahmednagar Municipal Council. After complying with the necessary formalities, one part of the sample was sent for Analysis to the Public Analyst, Pune and the Public Analyst opined that the sample was not as per the Rule under the Act. After obtaining sanction for prosecution as the sample was found adulterated, the complainant filed the complaint in the court against the respondents. Respondents pleaded not guilty to the charge. THEir defence was of denial. THE respondents no. 1 to 3 admitted that their shop was raided by the Food Inspector and he purchased from them three packets of "icing Mix Pulver Sugar" and that packets were sealed and two packets were sent to Ahmednagar Municipal Council. However, they denied about the report of Public Analyst, Pune and also about the sanction of prosecution. THEir contention was that they purchased the articles from respondent no. 4, the proprietary concern which has manufactured the articles and they have produced the bill under which they purchased the articles from respondent no. 4.

(3.) SO far as accused nos. 1 to 3 are concerned, since admittedly their purchase of the articles from respondent no. 4 as per bill produced by them as per warranty given in the bill and under Section 19 (2) (b) and (3) of the Act. The learned Magistrate also found that there no standard is prescribed under the Rules for the product "icing Mix Pulver Sugar". The standard is prescribed for "icing Sugar". In the absence of any standard prescribed for "icing Mix Pulver Sugar" in the Rules, it can not be said that the product/samples "icing Mix Pulver Sugar" was adulterated. In other words, the trial court held that the standard prescribed for "icing Mix Sugar" under the Rules of the Act can not be applied for the product "icing Mix Pulver Sugar". The trial court found that it can not be stated that the sample was substandard or injurious to the health. The trial court also found that the Food Inspector has not followed proper procedure while drawing the sample and, therefore, breach has been committed in drawing the samples and sealing the same as it was not in conformity with Rules 14, 15 and 16 of the Rules under the Act.