STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. GUNDA MONAPPA SHETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case illustrates the utter careless manner in which the persons who have been entrusted with the implementation of a social piece of legislation like the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act are doing their work. One elementary principle which every Food Inspector must know is the quantity of the sample which is to be sent to the Public Analyst. Here in this case the Food Inspector who from the evidence in the case appears to be no different has conveniently failed to take the most essential step of measuring the sample while collecting it.

(2.) The three accused were prosecuted in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, at Pune for an offence punishable under section 7(i) read with section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act on the ground that the sale of Dahi made to the Food Inspector was adulterated within the meaning of the Act. Accused No. 1 is the proprietor of a restaurant called Joshi Refreshments; accused No. 2 is the manager of the restaurant who was present in the restaurant ; and accused No. 3 is the restaurant itself. The prosecution evidence shows that the Food Inspector took 9 watis of Dahi from the restaurant of the accused, mixed their contents together and divided the same into three parts, one of which was sent to the Public Analyst. The report of the Public Analyst shows that the sample contains added water beyond the permissible limit and is thus adulterated within the meaning of the Act. In the trial Court the Food Inspector was examined and nowhere in his examination-in-chief does he say that the sample which was taken from the restaurant of the accused weighed 600 grams. He only mentions that he took the contents of 9 watis and mixed them together. (P.W. 2) Salve, the panch of the taking of sample of Dahi, has in clear words admitted that each wati contains 50 gms. of Dahi and therefore, the contents of 9 watis would be 450 gms. One third of this will be naturally 150gms. According to Rule 22 of the Rules framed under the Act, the sample of Dahi which ought to be sent to the Public Analyst must be of 200 gms. It has now been held by the Supreme Court in (R.G. Pamnani v. State of Maharashtra) A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 189 that the shortage in the quantity of the sample to be sent to the Public Analyst is not permitted by Statute and infraction of Rule 22 wherein quantities to be sent to the Public Analyst are mentioned causes prejudice to the accused. Relying upon this judgment the learned trial Magistrate was forced to acquit the accused of the offences with which they were charged.

(3.) Despite this clear proposition in law the State thought it fit to prefer this appeal which is doomed to fail in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court. Mr. Solkar, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing in support of the appeal, however contended that there is no serious cross-examination of the Food Inspector when he says that he had collected 600 gms. of Dahi and sent 1/3rd of it to the Public Analyst. Mr. Solkar further contends that the statement of the Food Inspector is supported by Exh. 15 which is a receipt signed by accused No. 2 himself wherein he admits having sold 600 gms. of Dahi to the Food Inspector. I am not prepared to accept this submission of Mr. Solkar for the simple reason that the Food Inspector has not cared to mention in the examination-in-chief whether he weighed the sample. Indeed, he could not have said it because he did not weigh the sample. In the cross examination he admitted that he merely collected the contents of 9 watis and then divided it into three parts. He has not explained how he maintains that the contents of the 9 watis are 600gms. Worse still, he has been completely contradicted by (P.W. 2) Salve the panch who has in clear terms admitted that each wati contains 50 gms. and by simple process of arithmetic it is clear that the sample sent by the Food Inspector could not have weighed more than 150 gms. The order of acquittal, therefore, must be confirmed and is hereby confirmed.