STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. PURANCHAND GIRIRAJ AND CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order of acquittal recorded by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, First Class of Poona, in Criminal Case No. 2577 of 1973, is challenged by the state in this appeal. In that case three persons were charged with the offence punishable under section 16(1)(a)(i) read with section 7(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). During the pendency of the trial, accused No. 3 died and the case naturally abated against him. According to the prosecution accused Nos. 1 and 2 were the partners of a firm called "Puranchand Giriraj and Co.". On 25th January, 1973, the Food Inspector Mahajani purchased from the accused 450 gms. black pepper. The purchased quantity was divided, according to the prosecution, into three different parts, and one of the parts which was sent to the Public Analyst was found by him to be adulterated within the meaning of section 2(i)(l) of the Act. The report at Exhibit 18 shows that the sample sent to the Public Analyst contained 17.48% of light berries. According to the standard fixed under the rules made the Act the proportion by way of light berries should not have been more than 10%. On the basis of this report, the required consent for the prosecution was obtained and the accused were put up for trial as mentioned above.

(2.) During the course of the trial, the accused made an application at Exhibit 5 for sending the sample which was given to them to the Central Food Technological Laboratory at Calcutta for analysis. Surprisingly, the Food Inspector made similar application for sending the sample with him to the Central Food Laboratory at Calcutta. The sample which was with the accused when examined at the Laboratory at Calcutta, was found to contain 8.4% of light berries and pin heads were found to be negligible. However, this analysis disclosed presence of mineral oil. The sample with the Food Inspector when analysed by the Central Food Laboratory at Calcutta was found to contain 14.3% light berries. No presence of mineral oil was directed in this sample. The report of the Central Food Laboratory in respect of the analysis of the sample which was of the accused is at Exhibit 7 and the report in respect of the analysis of the sample which was with the Food Inspector is at Exhibit 23. There were, thus, before the learned trial magistrate, three reports of three part of the original sample. The report at Exhibit 18 disclosed adulteration as mentioned in section 2(i)(l) of the Act; the report at Exhibit 7 did not disclose any adulteration at alleged but showed presence of mineral oil the report at Exhibit 23 disclosed adulteration within the meaning of section 2(i)(l). The find of the presence of mineral oil in one of the samples persuaded the learned trial Magistrate to frame an additional charge showing adulteration within the meaning of section 2(i)(h) of the Act.

(3.) Ultimately, the learned trial magistrate passed the order of acquittal which is the subject matter of the challenge in this appeal by holding that consent for the prosecution was not legal and valid, inasmuch as, it has been given before the report of the Central Food Laboratory at Calcutta was received. The learned trial magistrate also held that the provisions of section 11(i)(b) have not been complied with by the Food Inspector when he took sample from the accused.