STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. RAM MURAT DUBE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent-accused was prosecuted at the instance of the Food Inspector of Maharashtra State for an offence punishable under section 16 read with section 7(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.

(2.) The Prosecution case was that the sample of cows milk collected from the accused was adulterated within the meaning of the Act. The learned trial Magistrate acquitted the accused on two grounds viz. that the prosecution had not proved compliance with Rule 14 of the Rules framed under the Act and that the witness who accompanied the Food Inspector was not examined. He relied upon a judgement of this Court in (B.A. Sawant v. The State of Maharashtra) 70 Bom.L.R. 794 wherein it has been held section 10(7) and Rule 14 of the Rules framed under the Act are mandatory. But it has also been held in that judgment that a contravention of the said provisions will not necessarily result invitiating the trial. The learned Magistrate, however, persuaded himself that in the instant case corroboration from an independent witness was necessary.

(3.) In so far as the learned Magistrate appears to hold that without corroboration of an independent witness the evidence of the Food Inspector cannot be relied upon, he is in error. The provisions of section 10(7) being salutary, should be complied with by the Food Inspector; but that does not mean that the evidence of the Food Inspector, who is not an accomplice, that he had complied with the requirements of law by calling a panch witness and taking his signature, could not be accepted without corroboration. In any case it is not necessary for me in the instant case to go into the details of this controversy, because in my opinion the order of acquittal is sustainable by the other evidence which shows that there has been non-compliance with Rule 14 which requires that samples of food for the purpose of analysis shall be taken in clean dry bottles or jars which shall be closed sufficiently tight to prevent leakage etc. In the present case the Food Inspector has admitted that he did not clean or dry the bottle in which the samples were taken. He, however, says that part of the work was done by his assistant. To a pointed question in the cross-examination he admitted that he did not know when the assistant did it. It is, therefore, impossible to hold that the Food Inspector who has been examined proved that the bottle were cleaned or dried as required under the rule. This could have been proved by the assistant who is alleged to have done that part of the work. Unfortunately that assistant has not been examined. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove that there was a compliance with Rule 14 of the Rules framed under the Act.