SAYAGAUD Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Adv. Mr. A.S. Gandhi h/f. Sr. Adv. Mr. P.V. Mandlik for the revision applicant, and learned APP Mr. U.S. Mote for the respondent -State.

(2.) THE applicant herein is convicted for offence punishable under Section 7(i) read with Section 2(ia)(a), read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 [For the purpose of brevity, hereinafter referred to as "1954 Act"], and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for one year and to pay find of Rs. 1000/ -, in default, to suffer further simple imprisonment for one month, vide judgment and order dated 11th December 2000, passed by the Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), Bhokar, in Regular Criminal Case No. 217/1995. He was also convicted for offence punishable under Section 7(i), read with Section 2(ia)(m), read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the 1954 Act, and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/ -, in default, to suffer further simple imprisonment for one month. He was also convicted for offence punishable under Section 7(v), read with Rule 44(e), read with Section 16(1)(a)(ii) of the 1954 Act, and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 500/ -, in default, to suffer further simple imprisonment for 15 days. The substantive sentences were to run concurrently.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the applicant submits that, in fact, the applicant herein was the owner of Hotel Kanaka Bhuwan, Bhokar. However, the hotel was being run by the son of the applicant, who has expired during the pendency of the proceedings before the trial court. It is the case of the prosecution, that on 25th April 1995, the Food Inspector had taken sample of groundnut oil from an open unlabelled aluminum kettle from the hotel of the present applicant. At that time, the applicant was not present in the hotel. His son was present. The Food Inspector had given notice to the son. The Food Inspector had purchased the said groundnut oil, but details of purchase were not disclosed. Thereafter, the said sample was sent for analysis. It was found that the said groundnut oil was adulterated. The son of the applicant had also disclosed identity of the grocer from whom said groundnut oil was purchased by the son of the applicant. However, in the present case, the said grocer has not been arraigned as an accused.