LAWS(BOM)-1977-11-4

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. A MAMOO MOHIDDIN MALBARI

Decided On November 17, 1977
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Appellant
V/S
A.MAMOO MOHIDDIN MALBARI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State has filed this appeal challenging the order of acquittal recorded in favour of the respondent - original accused - by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Satara, acquitting the accused under the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

(2.) THE facts, in brief, are as under : - Gajanan Rangrao Musale, who is working as the Food Inspector, Satara District, visited the shop belonging to the respondent known as 'highway Canteen' at Kondave, on 12th September 1974 at 12-30 p. m. After disclosing his identity he purchased a sample of chilly-powder for analysis. He took sample of 450 grams of chilly-powder and paid Rs. 6/ -. There is no dispute that all the usual formalities have been performed by him in the instant case, such as, dividing the sample into three parts, putting it into three bottles which were corked and labelled. All this is done in the presence of the panch who was taken by the Inspector. One of the bottles was sent for examination of the Public Analyst who found that the sample contained total ash more than 8% by weight and was adulterated under Section 2 (i) (e) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Art, 1954. After obtaining the sanction, the accused was prosecuted for having stored for sale adulterated chilly-powder.

(3.) AT the trial, the Food Inspector Shri G. R. Musale was examined who corroborated his complaint and substantially deposed what I have stated above as prosecution case. The Public Analyst was examined who stated that the chilly-powder is spices, and in the instant case, sample of 150 grams collected was more than sufficient quantity for the purposes of analysis. The learned Magistrate held that the chilly powder was not spices. The sample of the chilly-powder that ought to have been sent under rule 22 to the Public Analyst was 200 grams, i. e. under caption foods not specified. AS there was a breach of Rule 22, the accused was entitled to acquittal.