STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. MOHANLAL HANUMANDAS VAISHNAWA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the State against the order of acquittal, dated 31st December, 1975, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, II Court Thane, acquitting the two respondents of the charge under section 7(i) read with section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. According to the case for the prosecution, the Food Inspector D.G. Gangavani with the help of another Food Inspector and a panch visited the shop of M/s. Govindram Mohanlal Vaishnav, situated in Muslim Jamat Building at Bhyandar, on 29-5-1973. The first respondent was present as a salesman, the second respondent is stated to be the proprietor of the shop. It was a grocery shop. Among the many articles sold, there was sweet oil kept in a tin. It measured 15 Kgs. It was in loose condition kept in a tin box. The complainant Food Inspector took a sample of 375 gms. of such sweet oil from that tin box, paying Rs. 2.80 for it. He put 125 gms. of sweet oil in each of the three bottles, and the bottles were corked and seals were put on them, under his signatures in the presence of the panchas. He gave one bottle to accused No. 1 Mohanlal, another such bottle was sent to the Public Analyst, Poona and the third bottle was retained by him. When the report from the Public Analyst was received, the ingredients found in the sample of the sweet oil came to be noted therein and the Public Analyst expressed his opinion that the sample was adulterated, as falling under section 2(i)(a) and Rule 44(e) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. Reference to Rule 44(e) would show that the sample was a mixture of two oils.

(2.) At the time of the trial, the panch turned hostite. Food Inspector Gangavani alone gave evidence producing the necessary documents. Accepting the argument that there was a breach of Rules 17 and 18 inasmuch as the sample and the specimen seal together with the copy of the memorandum were not sent separately and accepting also the argument that the quantity sent to the Public Analyst does not conform with any of the items listed in Rule A. 17 of the P.F.A. Rules in Appendix B, so that the sample of 125 grams sent for analysis did not conform with Rule 22 of the P.F.A. Rules, the learned Magistrate, acquitted the respondents.

(3.) The State had come in appeal against that order of acquittal. There are a number of points which could be considered in favour of the respondents, so that the appeal of the State cannot at all be accepted.