STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. ISHWARDAS NATHIMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present respondent Ishwarprasad and one Motilal were tried for an offence under section 16(1)(a) read with section 8(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act read with Rules 5-1-11-01-11 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. Original accused No. 2 Motilal was absent as he could not be served and his case was therefore separated and the trial proceeded only as against original accused No. 1 Ishwarprasad Nathimal.

(2.) The prosecution was in respect of adulterated milk which was found in the shop belonging to respondent Ishwarprasad run in the name of Shri Arya Dairy Farm at Girgaon, Bombay. On 20-4-1974 at about 10.30 a.m. one Gangadhar Waman Ambordekar, Food Inspector, D Ward, Bombay Municipal Corporation accompanied by one Dhansingh Ramsingh visited the shop of the respondent-accused and purchased on payment 700 ml. Litres of buffaloes boiled milk for an amount of Rs. 1.40 p. after disclosing his identity as a food Inspector. According to the said Gangadhar, he divided the sample into three equal parts, packed them, labelled them and sealed them in three separate containers after adding adequate quantity of formalin to each one of them. This, according to him, was done in the presence of the accused as well as in the presence of panch witness Dhansing. One of the samples was given to the accused and the other was sent to the Public Analyst for examination. It was found on examination that the sample did not confirm to the test laid down for unadulterated milk and it was found that there was a contravention of the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act read with the Rules thereunder. Both the accused therefore came to be tried before the Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate, 4th Court, Girgaon, Bombay. As stated earlier the case of the original accused No. 2 was separated as he could not be traced and the case proceeded only as against original accused No. 1.

(3.) The prosecution examined the Food Inspector Gangadhar Ambordekar and panch witness Dhansingh. Dhansing had first denied knowledge of every thing. He even denied that he was called by the Food Inspector at any place. After showing him his signature on the panchnama, he admitted his signature and then he recollected that the was called to the milk shop by the Food Inspector at Girgaon Road and he was given milk there to drink. He was asked to sign certain papers which he did and he identified his signatures of in the documents and further admitted the accuse No. 1 who was alone in the dock in the Court was present. According to the learned Magistrate, the evidence of Gangadhar, food Inspector, was not corroborated by panch witness Dhansingh as he did not speak of the sale of the milk by the vendor to the Food Inspector and the samples being taken into three bottles and they being labelled and sealed. The learned Magistrate took the view that since the evidence of the Food Inspector was not corroborated by the independent witness, viz. the panch, the conviction of the accused would not be based only on the sold testimony of the Food Inspector. In this view of the matter, he discharged the accused before him, who is now respondent No. 1 in this appeal. Against this order, the State had filed this appeal against both the original accused. The name of original accused No. 2 was, however, deleted by order dated 23-8-1974 and this appeal is only against original accused No. 1 Ishwarprasad Nathimal.