STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. ABBA MUSHA UUSUF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the State against an order of acquittal passed in favour of respondents Nos. 1 and (original accused Nos. 1 and 2) by the Presidency Magistrate, 35th Court, V.T. Bombay, acquitting them of the charge under section 16(1)(a) (i) read with section 2(i)(l) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, hereinafter referred to as "the Act", read with Rule, 5-A-21 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, hereinafter referred to as "the Rules".

(2.) Briefly stated, the case for the prosecution was as follows : Accused No. 1 is the owner of a panmasala shop known as Messrs. A.M. Supariwala, situate at Fort, Bombay. Accused No. 2 is the servant of accused No. 1 running the said shop. On 24th October, 1972, the Food Inspector Rane (P.W. 1), visited the shop in the presence of two panchas, one of whom was Yeshwant (P.W. 2). Accused No. 2 alone was present in the shop. Rene demanded and purchased 600 gms. of catechu (edible) form accused No. 2 for a price of Rs. 6.75 p. After going through the necessary formalities, a sample of the stuff was sent by Rane to the Public Analyst, who analysed the stuff and submitted his report (EX. G). The public Analyst Chhatim (P.W. 3), also gave evidence in Court. According to him, the sample of catechu (edible) examined by him was adulterated. The sample contained moisture to the extent of 75.8% as against the standard of 12%. The total ash contact was 8.3% as against the standard of 8% as the maximum. The ash insoluble was 6.4% as against the standard of 5% as the maximum. The sample also contained foreign matter of tapioce starch. For all these reasons, the stuff was sub-standard and adulterated within Rule 5-A-21 of Rules.

(3.) Before the learned trial Magistrate, it was not disputed and it is also his finding that the sample analysed by the Public Analyse it was sub-standard and hence adulterated. The defence of accused No. 1 was that although he is the owner of the shop in question, he was not present when Rane visited it and obtained sample of catechu from the shop. He denied all responsibility for storing or selling an adulterated article of food, stating that in his shop he does not sell any adulterated stuff. The defence of accused No. 2 was that all that he had sold to Rane was amiri panmasala and he had not sold catechu (edible). The stuff analysed by the Public Analyst and found to be sub-standard and adulterated was not from the shop of accused No. 2 and he had not sold it to Rane.