STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. RAMJILAL PRABHUDAYAL AGRAWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the Public Prosecutor and Mr. Agrawal for the accused. This is an appeal by the State against acquittal of the accused under section 7 (i) r/w. 2 (is) (a) (m)punishable under section 16 of the Prevention of Food adulteration Act.

(2.) HOWEVER, apart from arguing on merits, Mr. Agrawal for the accused contended that the date of the offence in this case is 6. 11. 1982 when the Food Inspector took samples from the shop of the accused. , that way it is more than 22 years old case. Complaint was filed against the accused in 1983 vide Criminal Case No. 114 of 1983 and after facing prosecution for 7 years, accused came to be acquitted by the then Judicial Magistrate, First Class. Solapur, by judgment dated 21. 3. 1988. This appeal was filed in 1988. and it is coming for hearing after 16 years for no fault of the accused. Therefore, according to Mr. Agrawal, when the accused is acquitted for the offence allegedly committed in 1982$ then after 22 years this Court should not interfere in the order of acquittal. Mr. Agrawal relied upon two judgments in this regard. One is of the supreme Court and the other is of the Division Bench of this Court. The Supreme Court Judgment is reported in AIR 1999 SC 1507, State of Maharashtra Vs. Gopalprasad govindprasad Agrawal and the Division Bench Judgment of this Court is reported in 1988 (1) Bom. C. 68 State of maharashtra Vs. Nandiram Ahuja. In the case of Supreme Court two separate prosecutions were launched against the Respondents under Prevention of food Adulteration Act for exposing for sale chilly powder and turmeric (whole) in their shop, which on analysis were found to be adulterated. The trail Court convicted the accused. The Appellate Court set aside the conviction on the ground that written consent given under section 20 of the said Act was not proper. The judgment of the Supreme court reported in AIR 1986 SC 2160 was relied upon by the high Court. The State challenged the order of acquittal before the supreme Court. The Supreme Court on going through the record came to the conclusion that High Court was not justified in concluding that the consent was not proper. However, even then, the Supreme Court in para 5 of its judgment held as under :