THE STATE Vs. PURSHOTTAM BABURAO PANDE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order of acquittal recorded by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 22nd Court, of Bombay on 25th of Jan., 1977 in Case No. 15/S/1976 is sought to be challenged by the State in this Appeal. The prosecution was for an offence punishable under Sec. 16(l)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, on the basis that the Respondent (who will be hereinafter referred to as "the accused") sold to the Food Inspector of Bombay, milk which on analysis was found to be adulterated. The learned trial Magistrate acquitted the accused on the ground that on the prosecution evidence itself it was crystal clear that the Food Inspector, while packing and sending the sample for analysis, had failed to take steps in compliance with R.I. 16 of the Rules framed under the Act.

(2.) Mr. Deshmukh, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing in support of the appeal was unable to show that the said finding recorded by the learned trial Magistrate is erroneous. In fact, after going through the evidence of Gopal Hari the Food Inspector with the assistance of Mr. Deshmukh, I have no hesitation in holding that he has failed to comply with the requirements of not only R.I. 16, but also of R.I. 17. That is also doubtful whether he has complied with the provisions of R.I. 18 also. On these facts and in this state of evidence, it is impossible to show that the order of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Magistrate is erroneous.

(3.) In the result, this Appeal must fail and is dismissed. Bail bond of the accused is cancelled. Appeal dismissed.