THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. RUPCHAND BHAGWANDAS GANDHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Prosecution/ State has challenged the order of acquittal of the accused by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ghodnadi, Dist. Pune in Reg. Cri. Case No. 96 of 1992 on 29-07-1998; whereby the accused/ respondent was acquitted of the offence u/s. 7 (I) r/w. Sec.

(2.) (ia),(a), (c), (h), (l) r/w. Rule 50 punishable u/s. 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act , 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'PFA Act'). 2. The prosecution story as emerges from the record is that accused is that proprietor and vendor of M/s. R. B. Gandhi, Kirana Store at Pimperkhed, Tal. Shirur. He is doing his business in food articles. Original Complainant was the Food Inspector. Complainant had visited the shop of the accused at about 4-5 p. m. on 06-03-1992 with one panch. Accused was present in the shop. Complainant purchased 1200 gms of Vanaspati which was kept in unlabelled open tin. Complainant paid price for the same and obtained receipt. The said commodity was then divided into three equal parts in clean empty stainless steel pot. Each part of Vanaspati was put in 3 dry, clean bottles. The bottles were corked and sealed separately. The were wrapped separately in papers and labelled. Signatures of accused and witness were affixed. One sealed bottle was sent to Public Analyst, Pune on 07-03-1992. The other counter parts were also sent to Local (Health) Authority on the same day. The report of the Public Analyst dt. 07-04-1992 was received on 21-04-1992. It was opined that the sample of Vanaspati showed presence of Castor Seed Oil and therefore the same was not as per the standards of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. Matter was referred to Jt. Commissioner for according sanction u/s. 20 of the PFA Act. After the sanction was received, complaint was filed by the then Inspector.

(3.) After the accused appeared before him, learned J.M.F.C. has recorded evidence before charge. When it was found that sufficient material has been placed to frame a charge, charge has been framed against accused at Ex. 34. In all 4 witnesses were examined by the complainant. Taking into consideration the evidence on record, learned Magistrate has come to the conclusion that prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused. Accused has been therefore, acquitted of the offence u/s. 7 (I) r/w. Secs. 2(ia),(a), (c), (h), (l) r/w. Rule 50 punishable u/s. 16 of PFA Act. This acquittal is under challenge in this appeal.