PRABHAKAR RAGHUNATH KAMERKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner Prabhaker Raghunath Kamerkar was convicted by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Chiplun, for an offence punishable under Section 7(i) read with Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a further period of 1.6 months. He preferred an appeal before the Sessions Judge, Ratnagiri, against his conviction and sentence, but that appeal was dismissed. The petitioner has now come to this Court in revision.

(2.) According to the prosecution. Food Inspector Nakhava (P. w. 1) visited the grocery shop of the petitioner at Guhagar on28th November 1972 along with panch witnesses. After disclosing, his identity Nakhava purchased750gms of Tur Dal from the petitioner, who was present in the shop, telling him that he wanted to send a sample of Tur Dal for analysis. He divided the sample in three equal parts and after following the prescribed procedure, he sent one sealed sample packet with a memorandum in from VII as prescribed by the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules', to the Public Analyst for analysis and report. He also sent separately a copy of memorandum and specimen impression of the seal used to seal the packet of the sample. |n due course, fhe report of the Public Analyst was received that the sample contained metalline yellow which was a non-permitted coal tar dye and, therefore, the sample of Tur Dal was adulterated.

(3.) The main defence of the petitioner was that he had purchased the Tur Dal in question from a dealer by name Shikshet Ganshet Bhingarde of Kolhapur with a written warranty and the Tur Dal while in possess/on of the petitioner was properly stored and he sold it in the same slate as he purchased it. Therefore, the petitioner was protected under section 19(2) of the Act. The petitioner examined Shikshet Bhingarde (D, W, 1) in defence and also produced the bill (Ex. 34) dated 22nd June 1972 containing the warranty. Before the learned Sessions Judge, a fur ther defence was taken by the petitioner that there was non-compliance with Rules 7, 17 and 18 of the Rules, and, therefore, the conviction of the petitioner on the basis of the report of the Public Analyst could not be sustained.