STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. MARUTI DAMODAR RAKSHE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed by the State of Maharashtra, against the acquittal of the respondents (original accused) by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, VII Court, Dadar, Bombay, of offence under section 16 read with sections 2(i)(1), 2(i)(j) and 2(v) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. Accused No. 2 Ganpat Dhondiram Sule is the Proprietor of a firm known as Maharashtra Ladoo Samrat doing business on Dr. Ambedkar Road, at Lalbaug in Bombay and accused No. 1 Maruti Damodar Rakshe, is the Manager of that firm. On April 11, 1972, at about 2 p.m. Food Inspector Shri Kurlekar, and Food Inspector Shri Kirtane, visited the firm of the accused and purchased 450 grams mixed Masala from accused No. 1 for analysis. After the usual preliminaries, sample of the purchased mixed Masala was sent to the Public Analyst and on receipt of his report that the sample was found to be adulterated, both the accused came to be prosecuted for the offences mentioned above. The accused admitted that 450 grams of mixed masala were sold by them to the Food Inspectors, but denied to have committed any offence and pleaded not guilty. On appreciation of the evidence adduced by the prosecution and after taking into consideration the statements of the accused, under section 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the learned trial Magistrate, came to the conclusion that the alleged guilt had not been brought home to the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. He, therefore, acquitted both the accused of the offences with which they were charged. It is this order of acquittal passed by the learned trial Magistrate that is now being challenged. The fact that on April 11, 1972, at about 2 pm., 450 gms. of mixed Masala were purchased from the firm of the accused is not disputed by them. Even on this admitted fact, the accused are entitled to an acquittal. In the first place, there is no standard prescribed for mixed Masala. Even if the article purchased by the Food Inspector is assumed to be curry powder the quantity purchased and consequently the quantity sent to the Public Analyst for analysis falls short of the prescribed standard. In (Rajaldas G. Pammani v. State of Maharashtra) A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 189, the Supreme Court has held that non compliance with the quantity to be supplied, causes not only infraction of the provisions but also injustice. The shortage in quantity for analysis is not permitted by the statute. On this ground alone, the acquittal of the accused would be clearly justified. The order of acquittal is, therefore, confirmed and the appeal is hereby dismissed. Bail-bonds cancelled.