MOHANLAL JAMANLAL KHANDELWAL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Accused No. 2 has filed this Revision application aggrieved by the order of conviction whereby the learned Sessions Judge enhanced the sentence to a period of six months and a fine of Rs. 1000.00 under section 7(i) read with section 16(1)(a)(i) of tire Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, and dismissed his appeal challenging the conviction awarded by the trial Court.

(2.) The prosecution case, in brief, is as follows On 8th July 1973, the complainant S.B. Deshmukh, Food Inspector of Sholapur District, visited the restaurant styled as "Vasant Restaurant" along with another Food Inspector B.G. Londhe, and two Panchas. The petitioner Shri Mohanlal Khandelwal was present in the above restaurant. It is the allegation of the prosecution that milk was kept for sale in that restaurant. The complainant purchased 660 millilitres of milk and gave Rs. 1/- to Mohanlal Khandelwal and obtain a receipt. Before purchasing the complainant disclosed his identity and told Mohanlal that he was purchasing milk for analysis. The Food Inspector gave notice in Form No. VI. Thereafter usual formalities of dividing milk in three equal parts and three bottles were filled. There is no serious dispute about it. One of the bottles was kept with the accused and one was sent to the Public Analyst. A detailed Panchnama was drawn. The Public Analyst on examination found that the sample contained 68.9% of added water and a fat deficiency of 16.0%. He, therefore, gave the opinion that the milk was adulterated. After obtaining necessary sanction the complaint was lodged against the four accused persons.

(3.) The learned Magistrate acquitted the other three accused and disbelieved the defence of accused No.2. Accused No. 2. stated in his statement that the Food Inspector obtained his signature on the receipt under compulsion. He had told the Food Inspector that the milk was for adding to the tea, and, therefore, it was a decoction and he had not kept the milk for sale. It was also contended that there was breach of rule 22 inasmuch as the sample taken was not 660 ml. and 220 ml. of milk was not sent for examination of the Public Analyst. The learned Magistrate while accepting the prosecution case observed that in the restaurant the accused does not carry on the business of selling milk, but stores milk to add to tea as one of its constituents and though he has committed an offence, the offence is of a technical nature. Therefore, he held him guilty, convicted him under section 7(1) and 17(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, and sentenced him simple imprisonment till rising of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000.00, in default of payment of fine to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 6 months.