H T JADHAV Vs. RAMNIKLAL S O THAKERSEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Food Inspector of the Municipal Council of Jalna launched a prosecution against the respondent No. 1 who will hereinafter be referred to as the accused for an offence punishable under section 7(i) read with section 16(1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act on the ground that he sold adulterated milk of Food Inspector on 10th February, 1973. The prosecution case was that the milk contained added water. According to the prosecution on the day in question the Food Inspector H.T Jadhav of Jalna Municipal Council went to the shop of the accused and when the accused was receiving milk from a milk supplier took a sample of that milk and after putting it in three separate clean and dry bottless added formaline in each of the bottle and after sealing them with the seal of the municipality sent one sample to the Public Analysts office at Aurangabad. It is alleged by the prosecution that the bottles were pasted with the labels bearing the signatures of the accused and the panchas. The bottles were tied with the twine and sealed. The report of the Public Analyst shows that the sample of milk sent to him contained 11.1% of added water and, therefore, it was adulterated within the meaning of section 2(i)(c) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. On these allegations the accused was tried in Criminal case No. 799 of 1973 in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Jalna.

(2.) In support of its case the prosecution examined Food Inspector himself (P.W. 1). Hanmantrao Tukaramji Jadhav and (P.W. 2), Sumant Narharrao Kulkarni an employee of the Jalna Municipality who was entrusted with the task of forwarding the samples taken to the office of the Public Analyst Aurangabad.

(3.) The defence of the accused was that milk selling was not his business and he purchased the milk only for the purpose of preparing Khava and that sweetmeat prepared out of this Khava are sold in his shop. In support of his case the accused examined (D.W. 1), Sadashivrao Keshavrao Nagpurkar who is a Shop Inspector working with the same municipal council. He examined one Vaijanath Vithoba who according to the prosecution was selling milk on that day to the accused. The latter however has not supported the defence case nor has he given any admissions which would favour the accused but it has come in the evidence of the Food Inspector himself that this Vaijanath was the person who sold milk to the accused on the relevant day.