THE STATE Vs. LAXMAN JADHAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter arises out of an order of acquittal recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhir, recorded in Criminal Appeal No. 50 of 1975, dated 23rd Feb., 1976 whereunder the order of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bhir, in Criminal Case No. 942 of 1974 convicting the respondent-accused for an offence under section 7(i) read with section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, and sentencing him to suffer R.I. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000.00 was set aside. The State has challenged the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge recorded in favour of the respondent-accused.

(2.) On 30th Nov., 1973 at about 12.45 p.m. the complainant Madhukar Patil, who was so authorised, visited the shop of the respondent-accused which was styled as Messrs Kailas Kirana Stores' situate on Tilak Road at Bhir. The respondent was present in the shop and some food articles were stored in the shop for the purpose of sale. The complainant was accompanied by two panch witnesses and he was also accompanied by his assistant Shri Hajare. The complainant suspected that the chilly powder that was stored in the shop was adulterated and, therefore, after disclosing the identity, he purchased 45 grams of chilly powder after paying the requisite price and a bill was issued. Certain documents were also signed by the accused and the article was then divided into three parts, one part having been given to the accused and the other parts, according to the complainant, were properly sealed. A memorandum or a panchanama was drawn and in due course the complainant Food Inspector transmitted one sample to the Public Analyst, Aurangabad, with one original of Form VII. The report, Exh. 14, mentions that as the sample contained 21.08% of common salt, which is an extraneous matter, and as such the sample is adulterated under section 2(i)(c) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. It appears that the Public Analyst received the sample on 10th Dec., 1973 and he signed his report on 30th Jan., 1974. In due course the Food Inspector himself received the said report and a copy thereof was sent to the accused person. The Food Inspector then obtained the necessary sanction and consequently a complaint was lodged in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, at Bhir, for an offence under section 7(i) read with section 16(l)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

(3.) The accused while denying the offence contended that the chilly powder was not stored for sale and secondly no formalities which were mandatory under the Rules were observed by the Food Inspector and lastly the article in question was certainly not adulterated.