KANTILAL VALAJI MALI Vs. MANSINGRAO NIVRUTTI TORSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this Criminal Revision Application the applicant is challenging the judgment and order dated 26th March, 2002 passed by 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Pune in Criminal Appeal No. 181 of 1997, whereby the judgment and order dated 17th October, 1997 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pune in RCC No. 94 of 1996 was confirmed and the Appeal was dismissed. The applicant was convicted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pune for contravention of Section 7(i) r/w Section 2(ia) (a), 2(ia) (m) punishable under Section 16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). The Chief Judicial Magistrate had sentenced the applicant to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month. The 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Pune by the impugned judgment and order had upheld the judgment and order passed by the Trial Court and had dismissed the Appeal.

(2.) During the pendency of the present revision application, the original Respondent No. 1 Mansingrao Nivrutti Torse was reported to be dead and therefore, by the order dated 24th June, 2004 passed by this Court, the original Respondent No. 1 Mansingrao Torse was substituted by Joint Commissioner (Pune Division) Food and Drugs Administration.

(3.) The prosecution was launched by the original Respondent No. 1 against the revision applicant under the aforementioned Sections. The complaint was filed by the original Respondent No. 1 on 17th October, 1996 before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pune. According to the averments in the complaint, the the original Respondent No. 1 was Food Inspector appointed under Section 9 of the said Act. The applicant was owner and proprietor of the firm named and styled as Laxmi Sweet Centre, situated at 501, Rasta Peth, Pune11. On 11th January, 1996 at about 4.00 pm., the original Respondent No. 1, along with one Madanlal Jain and sampling assistant Mr. S. B. Alhat visited the applicant's premises. The original Respondent disclosed his identity as the Food Inspector. The original Respondent No. 1 demanded and purchased 750 grams Shrikhand for test analysis and paid Rs. 39/- for the same. The applicant gave him the food sample in a clean plastic mug. The original Respondent No. 1 gave the applicant notice in form No. VI under Section 14-A under the said Act. The 750 grams of Shrikhand was divided in 3 equal parts and each of the parts was kept separately in 3 clean and dry empty glass bottles. 20 drops of formalin were added as preservative in each of the bottles. The bottles were properly closed and sealed. Labels were pasted on the bottles and those bottles were kept in three different brown paper packets which were sealed with paper slips signed by the applicant, original Respondent No. 1 and the witness. Memo of the events was prepared. On 12th January, 1996. The original Respondent No. 1 sent one sealed sample to Public Analyst, Public Health Laboratory Pune -1. The two remaining samples were sent to Local Health Authority (LHA), Municipal Corporation, Pube by hand delivery. The original Respondent No. 1 received a letter dated 22nd February, 1996 from the Local Health Authority along with the report dated 9th February, 1996 of the Public Analyst. The report shows that the sample contained milk fats in the quantity of 5.5 % which was less than the prescribed limit of 8.5 % and therefore, the sample was not in conformity with the prescribed norms.