STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. PARSHOTTAM KANAIYALAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Criminal Appeal No. 1159 of 1957 has been preferred by the State of Bombay against the order pased by the learned Sessions Judge of Baroda in Criminal Appeal No. 33 of 1957 on his file.

(2.) The case of the prosecution was that the respondent, who was t he accused in the trial Court, owned a milk shop within the Municipal limits of the City of Baroda. The Food Inspector of the Baroda Municipality visited the milk shop of the accused on 9-7-1956 at about 8-30 a.m and purchased 1 1/2 lb. of milk for analysis, after giving him the necessary notice in that behalf, as required by the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954. The quantity of the milk purchased by the Inspector was filled in three bottles in equal parts, and the bottles were duly closed, saled and labelled in the presence of some panchas. One bottle was given into the possession of the accused and one was sent to the public analyst for analysis of its contents. On 30-7-1956 the public analyst sent a report that the milk was adulterated and it contained 2.7 per cent. fat and 4.1 S.N.F. The Food Inspector thereafter filed the complaint, out of which the present proceedings arise, against the accused, after taking the necessary consent in writing from the Chief Officer, who was empowered by the Municipality in that behalf. The Chief Officer accorded consent for instituting the prosecution. The complaint was that the accused had committed an offence under S. 16 read with S. 7 of the Preventin of Food Adulteration Act.

(3.) The learned Special Magistrate, First Class was inclined to hold that the accused was guilty of the offence under S. 16(1)(a) read with S. 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, and accordingly convicted and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 300, in default, to three months' rigorous imprisonment under S. 245, Criminal Procedure Code.