PRABHAKAR VINAYAK NATU Vs. VISHANJI NANJI SAW A

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Apte for the petitioner and Mr. Deshpande, A. P. P. for respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 1 though served is neither present nor represented by any Advocate.

(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 25-4-90 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thane discharging the respondent No. 1 accused who was being prosecuted in Criminal Case-No. 717 of 1986 on the complaint dated 5-12-86 filed by the Food Inspector under the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The allegations in the complaint were that the accused had contravened the provisions of section 7 (1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 read with Rules of 1955 under Item A. 25. 01, the Hard-boiled sugar confectionery. The respondent No. 1 was running a shop known as Prabhat Agency and inter alia dealt in retail sate of biscuits, chocolates etc. and the hard-boiled confectionery under Licence No. B-19. The petitioner visited the shop on 19th March 1986 at 9. 30 a. m. and purchased a sample of hard boiled sugar confectionery (Lemon and Orange) when the respondent No. 1, the owner was present in the said shop and himself sold the articles. The petitioner suspected adulteration and therefore purchased 900 gms. of hard boiled sugar from a plastic bag stamped as Murphy sweets and paid the price against the receipt. He also obtained the signatures of the respondent No. 1 and the pancha on the said receipt. He followed the prescribed procedure for obtaining the sample which was sent to the Public Analyst. The report of the Pubic Analyst dated 8-5-1986 in Form No. Ill appears on page 49 of the R and P received from the lower Court. According to the said report the sample did not conform to the standards of hard-boiled sugar confectionery as per PFA Rules, 1955. In the above Report of the Public Analyst it is shown that the sample contained Sulphated Ash 0. 1% and Ash insoluble in dil HCI-nil. The respondent No. 1 accused filed the application dated 3-11-1989 in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thane for discharge on the ground that the ingredients shown in the report of the Public Analyst do not show that the food sample had exceeded the prescribed limits of standards laid down in the Rules. It is pointed out that the report of the Public Analyst tallied with the standards laid down under Rule A. 25. 01 which is as follows: hard boiled sugar confectionery.-Hard boiled sugar confectionery shall mean a confectionery product which is a super-cooled solution of a combination of sucrose and liquid glucose (or cane sugar alone) treated with a doctoring agent, such as, cream of tartar (potassium acid tartarate) with or without the addition of one or more of the following:

(3.) THE learned Chief Judicial Magistrate after hearing both the sides by his order ated 25th April 1990 was pleased to discharge the respondent No. 1 accused on the ground that the report of the Public Analyst did not show that the sample in question did not conform to the standards of hard-boiled sugar confectionery. On the contrary the ingredients shown in the report were in accordance with the standard of the Rule which is quoted above.