JAYANTILAL THAKURDAS SURATWALA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision application by the accused is directed against their conviction by the two courts below under section 7(1) read with section 16(1)(a)(i) and 17 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short, the Act), and the other order sentencing the applicant No. 1 to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for the three months; and the applicant No. 2, the firm, of which the applicant No. 1 is the partner, to pay a of Rs. 1000/-.

(2.) Food Inspector-Narvane of Nanded took a sample of catechu on November 8, 1978 form the shop of the applicants and sent it for analysis. The Public Analysts report, dated December 14, 1978 was received and thereafter consent for the prosecution was obtained on January 24, 1979 and the complaint was filed on March 16, 1979. The Public Analyst, Aurangabad, having reported that the sample of catechu (elible) was adulterated and did not conform to the standard prescribed under Rule A. 20 of the Rules framed under the Act. The applicant No. 1 applied on March 29, 1979 for sending the sample for analysis to the Central Food Laboratory at Mysore in pursuance of the provisions of section 13(2) of the Act. The learned Magistrate sent a letter to the Chief Officer and Local Health Authority, Municipal Council, Nanded, on April 18, 1979, asking him to forward the sample, and after a reminder was sent on April 23, 1979, the sample was received by the Court on May 4, 1979. The learned Magistrate then sent the sample, after obtaining the escort, with a messenger, to the Central Food Laboratory, Mysore, along with his letter, dated May 16, 1979. The Central Food Laboratory issued a certificate on June 12, 1979, confirming that the sample was adulterated. The applicants ultimately came to be convicted on the basis of these reports.

(3.) The main submission of Shri Ganatra, the learned Advocate for the applicants, was that there was a total non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of section 13(2-B) of the Act and Rule 4 of the Rules framed under the Act. It may be not that both the Public Analyst and the Central Food Laboratory found the sample wanting in two of the requirements which are prescribed under Item 20, Clauses (c) and (d). While he Central Food Laboratory found it waiting also under Clause (f). The submission was that even the identity of the samples which came to examined by the two authorities, had been established, but it would be unnecessary for the purposes of this application to consider that position.