STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. HIRALAL SHANKARLAL GUJAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the State against the order dated Dec. 31, 1975, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Satara, whereby the order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Magistrate against the respondent for an offence under section 16 (1) (a) (i) read with section 7 (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was set aside and the respondent was acquitted.

(2.) The facts giving rise to the prosecution may be stated thus : The accused has a food grain shop at Shirval. District Satara; On April 22,1974,a news-item was published in the daily newspaper "Aikya" that five persons were poisoned due to consuming breads prepared out of Bairaata at Shirval. This news-item came to the notice of the Food Inspector Chandrakant M. Malekar (PW 1). He, therefore, went to Shirval on that very day and contacted one Haribhau Bhamkar who had given the news for publication. With the help of the said Haribhau, the Food Inspector contacted one lady by name Kamal, daughter of Sambhaji Ramble, who was affected by the said poison and recorded her statement. Her statement disclosed that she had purchased Bairaata on April 21, 1974 from the shop of the accused, and due to that ata, she got poisoned.

(3.) Having obtained the information the Food Inspector alone with one panch visited the shop of the accused where he found 5 kgs. of wheat floor kept in one tin for sale. He also found one bag containing 70 kgs of bajra kept for sale. There was another bag which was closed containing 100 kgs of bajri. He then demanded from the accused 600 grams of wheat flour; 750 grams of bajra from the open bag and 750 grams of bajra from the closed bag, as also 750 grams of turdal. He then served a notice in the prescribed form to the accused that he had purchased these articles for analysis. A panchnama was also drawn. 11 is not necessary to state all details regarding the other procedure followed by the Food Inspector required by the provisions of the Act and rules. This appeal relates to the purchase of 750 grams of Bajra from the closed bag As regards the purchase of 750 grams of bajra from the open bag, the report to the Chemical Analyser disclosed that there was no adulteration and therefore he was not prosecuted for the same. As regards the purchase of 600 grams of wheat flour, the accused was prosecuted, but has been acquitted by the trial court. The report of the Public Analyst showed that the bajra from the closed bag sent for analysis contained 0.06 percent of ergot and he has given certificate to that effect. According to the Public Analyst, the same was unfit for human consumption as it contained more than 0.05% of ergot infested grains. Relying on the evidence of the Food Inspector, the panch and the report of the Public Analyst, the learned Magistrate found the accused guilty of the offence under section 16 (1) (a) (i) read with sec. 7 (i) of the Act and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000.00, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.