PRAKASH PARMANAND GURBAKSHANI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant has impugned the judgment and order of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raver passed in R.C.C. No.155 of 1993 dtd. 23/2/2001 and the judgment and order of the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon in Criminal Appeal No.15 of 2001 dtd. 3/2/2006. Both Courts convicted the applicant for the offence punishable under Sec. 7(i) r/w Sec. 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 ('Act of 1954' for short). The applicant was sentenced to suffer R.I. for one year and directed to pay a fine of Rs.1,000.00 in default to pay the fine amount, he was to suffer R.I. for 15 days.

(2.) The prosecution case in brief was that the applicant was running a grocery shop. The Food Alteration Officer/complainant visited his shop with panchas on 7/8/1992. The cotton oil seed was stored in the backside of his shop. The complainant expressed his intention to purchase and draw the samples from the cotton oil seed and did local formalities. Accordingly, the samples were taken from the container of cottonseed oil. Those were divided into three parts and sealed. The necessary notices as required under the Act of 1954 were served to the applicant. On 10/8/1992, the complainant sent the samples for analysis to the State Food Laboratory. On the same day, he handed over two sealed samples to the Local Health Authority. On 15/9/1992, he received the report from the State Food Laboratory with a remark that the sample did not conform to the standard as per Item No. A.17.02 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. On 14/9/1993, he had received the sanction from the Assistant Commissioner (Maharashtra State), Jalgaon on 24/9/1993. On 9/11/1993, he filed the complaint to the Court. On the same day, the Court issued the process to the accused. The Local Health Authority addressed a letter with the laboratory to the applicant intimating to him that he may apply to the Court for sending another sample for the test to the Central Food Laboratory within ten days of the receipt of the intimation. The accused appeared on 13/1/1994 before the Court and on the same day applied to the Court for sending the samples to the Central Food Laboratory. The Court received the report of the Central Food Laboratory conforming the earlier analysis report of the State Food Analyst Laboratory. The Court appreciating the evidence held the accused guilty as mentioned above.

(3.) The learned counsel for the applicant has vehemently argued that the panch witness to the memorandum panchnama Exhibit-30 was dead. Even, another panch witness alive was not examined. Therefore, it violated Sec. 10(7) of the Act of 1954 and the seizure of the samples was not proved. It was fatal to the prosecution.