TARUNKUMAR DWARKAPRASAD JAISWAL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is convicted by 2nd Joint Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Hingoli for offence punishable under section 16 (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (for short "the Act") and was sentenced to suffer SI for three months and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default SI for one month, by order dated-20-10-1993. THE matter was carried in appeal. THE learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Hingoli, dismissed Criminal Appeal No. 22/1993 by order dated-20-12-1997. THEse orders of conviction and sentence are impugned by the petitioner in the present Revision.

(2.) Relevant facts in nutshell are that petitioner was manufacturing ice candies in his factory, by name, M/s. Bhavani Ice Candy Factory at Sadar Bazar, Hingoli. On 17-5-1989 the Food Inspector collected sample of 630 grams of ice candies in clean, dry and empty bottles. Preservative formulene was added to three parts of the sample and the sample bottle was sealed by following necessary procedure. One of the part, was sent to Public Analysis for anlaysis. The report of Public Analyst (Exh. 36) made it clear that the sample contained saccharine which is an artificial sweetener, use of which is prohibited under the Act, and Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (for short "the Rules") framed thereunder.

(3.) Learned counsel for petitioner has referred to the infraction of Rules 8, 14 and section 13 (2) (b) of the Rules. According to learned counsel, the prosecution has to prove that the Food Inspector has requisite qualification and has completed necessary training. The objection raised has nothing to do with the ingredients of the offence but is concerned entirely with factual aspects. It can be seen that the notification (Exh. 25) in respect of appointment of Food Inspector is placed on record. It is also not in dispute that Food Inspector was duly appointed and entrusted with the duties as enjoined by the Act. As notification regarding appointment is placed on record, it can be presumed that the officials acts were duly performed and that Food Inspector had necessary qualification for appointment and had undergone requisite training before he was entrusted with the field duty. Similar view is taken by the Gujarat High Court in the matter of Manka Hari Vs. State of Gujarat, 1968 CrLJ 746. In this view of the matter, contention in respect of qualification and training of Food Inspector cannot be sustained at this stage.