STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. VINAYAK MAHADEORAO WAZE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal against the acquittal filed by the State of Maharashtra takes an exception to the judgment and order of acquittal dated 27-7-1995 passed by the learned chief Judicial Magistrate, Wardha, in Reg. Cri. Case No. 161 of 1992, whereby both the accused have been acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 7 read with Section 16 (i) (ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration act, 1954 (for short 'the Act').

(2.) Brief facts of prosecution are required to be stated as under :- (a) Both the respondents/accused are said to be the partners of the shop known as m/s. Sadgurukrupa Kirana Stores situated at seloo. Narayan Narwane (P. W. 1) was working as a Food Inspector. He visited the shop of the respondents along with the panch witness mubarak (P. W. 3) on 11-12-1991 at about 10. 00 a. m. and found that respondent No. 1 was sitting in the said shop. The Food Inspector expressed to respondent No. 1 that he wanted to collect the sample of ground-nut oil. Accordingly he collected the sample of groundnut oil from an unlabelled tin containing about 15 litres of oil as per the procedure. The sample was divided and collected in three separate cleaned and dried bottles. Thereafter one part of the sample along with Form No. VII was sent to the Public Analyst on 11-12-1991 by the local Health Authority, Mr. Baban (P. W. 2) who was working as Assistant Commissioner, Food and Drugs Administration by retaining the other two samples. He had also forwarded the specimen of the seal along with the copy of form No. VII to the Public Analyst. (b) The report of Public Analyst (Ex. 42) was received in due course of time and it would indicate that the sample of ground-nut oil does not conform to the standards laid down under the Act. Then Baban (P. W. 2) had forwarded the copy of the report of Public analyst along with the notice under section 13 (2) of the Act to both the accused and those notices have been served on them on 13-7- 1992. Baban (P. W. 2) also accorded sanction for prosecution and thereafter private criminal complaint was lodged by the Food Inspector narayan (P. W. 1) in the Court of learned Chief judicial Magistrate.

(3.) The prosecution in order to bring home guilt has examined three witnesses including Food Inspector Narayan (P. W. I) , baban (P. W. 2) and panch-witness Mubarak (P. W. 3) and relied on direct as well as circumstantial evidence. The defence of both the accused is that of total denial. They did not examine any defence witness in support of their case. The learned Magistrate on appreciation of the evidence adduced by the prosecution has recorded the finding that the prosecution has failed to establish that accused No. 1 being vendor and accused No. 2 being the proprietor of the shop in question stocked for sale and sold adulterated ground-nut oil, a food article to the food Inspector as contended. He also recorded the finding that the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home guilt at the doors of the accused and consequently acquitted both the accused of the offence with which they were charged. This judgment and order of acquittal is under challenge in this appeal.