CHANDRAKANT GULABCHAND PARDESI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of the parties.

(2.) The petitioners are original accused against whom, respondent No.2 - Food Inspector filed a complaint case (R.C.C.No.561/1994), for commission of offence punishable under Section 7 (v) read with Rule 44(e) read with Section 16 and Section 7 (i) read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The complainant (respondent No.2) entered the witness box and deposed in support of the complaint. He was cross-examined. The petitioners objected framing of the charge. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latur, however, overruled their objections and proceeded to frame charge as per order dated 9.3.2005. A Revision Petition (Cri.Rev.No.30/2005) preferred by the petitioners came to be dismissed on August 31st, 2005 by impugned order of learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Latur.

(3.) The complainant/respondent No.2 asserted that he visited shop of the petitioners on 9th November, 1993. He purchased edible oil represented to be Safflower (Kardai) oil. The sample of purchased Safflower oil was collected in a dry empty and clean steel pot and after following necessary procedure, he divided the sample in three parts. One of the sample was sent for analysis to office of the Public Analyst. The report of Public Analyst indicated that the sample contravened Rule 44 (e) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules because it does not conform to the standards of Safflower oil for the reason that baudouin test was found to be positive.