THE STATE Vs. VITHALRAO ASHROBA BETKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Respondent in this Appeal is a milk vendor who to used come to Parbhani on a bicycle from a village and sell milk. On 19th of July 1977 which happened to be Ashadhi Ekadashi day, the accused, as usual, came on a bicycle with two cans containing milk. The Food Inspector stopped him on the out-skirts of the town where there was the Octroi Naka and purchased 660 Ml. litre of milk, l/3rd of which was sent for analysis to the Public Analyst. The latter reported that the sample was adulterated. On these facts, prosecution was launched against the accused in Criminal Case No. 1207 of 1975 in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Parbhani. The learned trial Magistrate, in a somewhat elaborated judgment, which this case did not deserve, found that the panchanama covering the purchase of the milk was more or less a farce. On this ground he acquitted the accused by his judgment and order dated 3rd Sept., 1976. This order of acquittal is challenged by the State in this appeal and Mr. B.Y. Deshmukh, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State was hard put in criticising the judgment of the learned trial Magistrate. What is somewhat shocking in this case T is the cavalier manner in which the Food Inspector has proceeded to purchase the milk from the accused. The panch unabashedly has mentioned that he was sitting inside the Naka when the purchase was effected and in fact the memo of the panchanama was also sent to him inside the Naka for the signature. The panchanama of having the milk therefore must be held to be a farce. What is still worst is the admission of this panch which shown from the first question in the cross-examination that he was sitting in the court hall when the Food Inspector was being cross-examined. He had therefore the benefit of hearing the answers which the Food Inspector gave. Despite this however he has not shown sufficient intelligence to repel the various defence suggestions put to him.- In terms he has admitted that he was not witnessing the actual purchase and measurements and the pouring of the milk into three bottles. He is not able to tell the colour of the bottles in which the samples were taken. This is enough to sustain the order of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Magistrate. If the sustainability of that order is to be re-inforced, it can be shown by reading the evidence of the Food Inspector which shows that he has miserably failed to comply with the requirements of Rules 16 and 17 of the Rules framed under the Act.

(2.) In the result, this appeal must fail and is dismissed. The order of acquittal passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate of Parbhani in Criminal Case No. 1207 of 1975 is confirmed. Bail bond of the accused is cancelled. Appeal dismissed.