RATANSI S O MENESI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is the accuseds appeal against his conviction and sentence for an offence under section 16(1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act).

(2.) According to the prosecution on 25-11-1971, samples of two articles of food-grains viz. Math Dal and Owa were collected from the shop of the accused by the complainant Food Inspector Kirtane (P.W. No. 1). The samples were sent to the Public Analyst. The report of the Public Analyst received showed that both the articles were adulterated within the meaning of the said Act and therefore prosecution was launched against the accused. On behalf of the prosecution, the complainant Food Inspector Kirtane (P.W. No. 1), his companion Drug Inspector Nayak (P.W. No. 3) and panch Bharat Merchant (P.W. No. 2) who was the Panch for the Panchanama of the collection of the sample.

(3.) The defence, among other things, was that both the articles were purchased by the accused from whole-sellers on the previous day and therefore the defence examined one Kantilal Shah from whom the Math Dal was purchased by the accused and Dhanjibhai Shah from whom that Owa was purchased. The accused also examined himself under section 342-A of the Criminal Procedure Code. Various points of defence were raised before the lower Court including the contention that there was no compliance with the mandatory provisions of Rules 17 and 18 read with Rule 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 made under the said Act. The learned Magistrate negatived all the defence contentions, and accepting the prosecution evidence convicted the accused as above and sentenced him to suffer R.I. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- or in default to suffer R.I. for three months more. It is against the said order of conviction and sentence that the present appeal has been preferred.