STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. PADMASHI VELJI CHHEDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order of discharge which is being challenged by the State deserves to be confirmed because the said challenge has no merits at all.

(2.) The first 3 respondents are the partners of the 4th respondent firm, while respondent No. 5 is the manufacturer of the commodity of food known as "Ghee". On 22nd August, 1978 the complainant, the Food Inspector alongwith accused No. 5 and other Food Inspector and a witness went to the business premises of the said firm where accused No. 5 had sold Ghee. The firm was dealing in that commodity on retail basis and thus the commodity was stored in the premises for sale to the public. The complainant purchased 450 grams of Ghee from one of two sealed tins on payment of the price. All the procedural formalities were observed when it was divided into three samples and all were properly sealed with the signature of the panchas as also containing the seal of the Department as per the sample. A detailed panchnama was drawn and other documents were prepared as per the information given by the accused. Accused No. 1 had issued the receipt for payment of the price of the sample purchased, though it does not clarify as to whether all the accused were present in the shop. In due course, one sample was sent to the Public Analyst, Bombay, who had analysed and sent his report to the complainant and the Local Health Authority. The two samples were retained by the Local Health Authority. The complainant, however, informed the Local Health Authority that the report of the Public Analyst, Bombay, contained deficiencies and, therefore, requested that Authority to forward one sample from their possession to the Public Analyst at Pune. The Local Health Authority, complied with that request and in due course the Public Analyst at Pune forwarded its report to the Local Health Authority which in turn forwarded its copy to the accused so as to give an opportunity to the accused to move the Court for sending the sample to the Central Food Laboratory at Calcutta after filing of the complainant, the accused did not exercise that option. The complainant, on obtaining the sanction, filed his complainant in the Court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 28th Court, Esplanade, Bombay, which is the subject matter of Criminal Case No. 155/S/79, for an offence under section 16(1)(a)(i) read with section 7(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 against all the four accused as well as the firm.

(3.) The accused denied the allegations and claimed to be innocent. They canvassed that the mandatory Rules have not been observed and, therefore, the prosecution is not sustainable. They also maintained that the commodity was not adulterated.