STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. BAHIRU MALHARI SADGIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On September 6, 1977 sometime in the morning the complainant Food Inspector went near Shivaji Chowk at Sinnar in Nasik District presumably for effecting raid in connection with sale of adulterated milk. He had taken two panch-witnesses as also his assistant. They were at short distance when they noticed one person sitting in the chowk under a tree with four cans and he was engaged in selling the milk from those cans to some of the customers, who were by his side. The complainant rushed towards him and disclosed his identity when he was told that buffalo milk was being sold from those cans. He then purchased 660 ml. litre of milk from the two cans out of the said four cans, on payment of an amount of Rs. 1.32 as the price. A cash memo was issued by the accused. The other formalities then came to be observed including dividing the said quantity in three equal parts, which were filled in six separate bottles which in turn came to be sealed putting lakh seal as well as paper seal bearing the sample number and Local Health Authority number and wrapper was placed around the bottles with twine string. The signatures of the accused were also taken thereon. The necessary information was collected as per requirement of the Rules under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The accused was furnished with a receipt containing all those details and then a panchnama was drawn of all the happenings. On the next day one sample bottle was forwarded to the office of the Public Analyst as required by the Rules along with necessary Forms by Registered Post. The Public Analyst by his report dated 5th October, 1977 certified that the commodity was adulterated inasmuch as it contained 25.5% of added water and thus did not confirm to the standards of buffalo milk as per Rules. The two other samples were already forwarded to the Local Health Authority. A copy of the Public Analysts report was also then forwarded to the Local Health Authority. The complainant then obtained necessary sanction in his favour for launching the prosecution and ultimately filed his complaint on 24th February, 1978 being Criminal Case No. 84 of 1978 against the accused in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate. First Class at Sinnar for offence under section 7(i)(v) read with section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. This was intimated to the Local Health Authority, who in turn informed the accused on 28th February, 1978 that if the accused desired to get the sample sent to the Central Food Laboratory at Calcutta for analysis then the accused should move the trial Court in that behalf. A copy of the Public Analysts report was also sent to the accused under that letter and which was received by the accused on 3rd March, 1978. The accused, however, did not exercise that option and faced the trial.

(2.) Pleading not guilty to the charge which was framed after recording some evidence, the accused came out with the denial of all the adverse allegations. He also denied his signature on various documents. It was suggested that one Keru Kundalik Kalunge was found selling the milk near about the spot when raid was effected by another Food Inspector Kulkarni and the accused declined to act as panch in that case and, therefore, he has been involved falsely.

(3.) The learned trial Magistrate accepted the prosecution evidence and held the accused guilty of the said offence with which he was charged. In persuance thereof the accused was sentenced to imprisonment till rising of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- or in default to suffer R.I. for three months. This order was recorded on 18th August, 1981. The accused did not prefer any appeal against that conviction. However, the State has filed this appeal under section 377(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the quantum of sentence praying that the sentence imposed by the trial Court be enhanced.