STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. MOTILAL DATTU PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent in this appeal was prosecuted in the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, 25th Court, Mazgaon, Bombay, in case No. 37/AD/1975 for an offence punishable under section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. I am refraining from referring in any details to the prosecution case and the evidence produced in support of the prosecution. One of the grounds on which the learned trial Magistrate by his judgment and Order dated 26th March, 1976 acquitted the accused was that the Food Inspector who took the sample was not properly rained as required by Rule 8 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. This Order of acquittal is challenged by the State in the present appeal supported before me by the learned Public Prosecutor Mr. B.Y. Deshmukh.

(2.) Mr. Deshmukh contends that the learned trial Magistrate was in error accepting the testimony of Ratnakant Sitaram Chatim, the Public Analyst, who was examined as Defence Witness No. 1. In his testimony the Public Analyst has mentioned that he had given practical training to the Food Inspector Samant for only two days. He further deposed that nobody else to his knowledge had given training to Samant in the laboratory of which he was incharge at Dadar. In the cross-examination made by the prosecution, the Public Analyst who is a Government servant and whose certificates are accepted in the Court as evidence admitted that he had issued the certificate at Exhibit 1. This certificate specifically mentions that N.L. Samant, the Food Inspector in the instant case "has received three months" training in food inspection and sampling work in the laboratory under my charge as required under Rule 8(ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955". The statement which he has made on oath in the Court as Defence witness is contrary to what he has mentioned in the certificate admittedly given by him. Though, I am unable to interfere with the order of acquittal because of the doubt created on the qualifications of the Food Inspector on account of the evidence given by the Public Analyst, one cannot help wondering how a man like Ratnakant Sitaram Chatim examined as D.W. No. 1 in the instant case can be entrusted with the task which he is now performing. He is a Public Analyst examined as a Defence witness in this case giving evidence which is totally destructive of the certificate which he had given earlier. In other words, either he is telling lies in the Court or the admits having given a false certificate. I am surprised that despite the passage of two years since this Order of acquittal was passed, the Government has not taken any action against this Public Analyst.

(3.) I am helpless as far as the order of acquittal is concerned and it will have to be confirmed. I hope, the learned Public Prosecutor Mr. B.Y. Deshmukh appearing for the State in the present appeal will bring the facts of this case to the notice of the Government.