STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. RAGHUNATH GOPICHAND BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr.Mhaispurkar for State and Mr.Shah for Respondent No.2. This Writ Petition filed by the State is directed against the Judgment and order dated 15th June 1989 passed by the 3rd Addl.Sessions Judge, Nasik whereby the Respondents were discharged in Criminal Case No.86 of 1989 lodged against them under the provisions of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

(2.) THE prosecution arose in the following manner: On 15-12-1984 the Food Inspector took the samples of three food articles 'Besan', 'Chana Dal' and 'Chana' from the shop of the respondents. Due Procedure under the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was followed and the prosecution came to be launched as the Public Analyst found food article 'Chana' being adulterated. The samples of 'Chana dal' and 'Besan' were however found to be as per the standard quality. The report of the Public Analyst is dated 31st December 1984 on the basis of which the respondents-accused were being prosecuted. The evidence was led before the trial Court and the trial Court by its order dated 29th September 1988 ordered to frame charge against the accused persons for the offence under Sections 7(i) read with section 2(a)(f) and 2(1a)(m) of the Food Adulteration Act read with Section 16 of the said Act. The said order was challenged by the Respondent No.2 herein before the Sessions Judge, Nasik in Revision. The Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Nasik who heard the Criminal Revision Application No.441 of 1988 challenging the order of the trial Court framing the aforesaid charges against the respondents, allowed the Revision Application and discharged the respondents in the said Criminal Case. Aggrieved by the said order of discharge the State has filed this present Criminal Writ Petition.

(3.) I have perused the order of the Sessions Court who has relied on the Judgments of this Court and the Supreme Court and has found that the evidence as led by the prosecution would not warrant conviction of the respondent, accused persons. Firstly it is not disputed that the report of the Public Analyst dated 31st December 1984 did not mention the date on which the sample in question was analysed. Though the sample was taken on 15-12-1984 the report is dated 31-12-1984. In the absence of the date of the analysis mentioned on the report, the Sessions Court rightly presumed that the sample might have been analysed on the date of the report i.e. after a period of 14 days. Relying on the ratio of the decision of this Court in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Tirath Singh reported in 1986 (I) Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases, page 55 the Sessions Court rightly held that the prosecution cannot be sustained since the sample was not analysed promptly which created a doubt that the sample might have deteriorated after its seizure. In the aforesaid case of Tirath Singh's it was held that when the date of analysis is not shown in the report, it creates a lacuna in the report and it would vitiate the prosecution. In that case the date of the report was 38 days after taking of the sample for analysis.