STATE Vs. RATANRAJ GAJRAJ MEHATA RESPONDENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent, hereinafter referred to as "the accused", was prosecuted in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, F.C. Pune, in Criminal Case No. 371 of 1973 for an offence punishable under section 16(i)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act on the ground that he sold to the Food Inspector of Pune, Ghee which on analysis was found to be adulterated. On 25th of Oct., 1972, 450 grams of Ghee was purchased from the accused. One-third of the quantity so purchased was sent to the Public Analyst who by his report intimated that sample sent to him contained 11.9% foreign fatty material thus disclosing adulteration within the meaning of section 2(i)(c) of the Act. During the trial however the accused asked for the sample which was with him to be sent to the Central Food Laboratory at Calcutta under section 13 of the Act. The learned Magistrate one Shri S D. Kadam who was seized of the matter at that time addressed a memorandum dated 15th of Feb., 1975 forwarding a sample to the Director, Central Food Laboratory. The Director of the Central Food Laboratory addressed a letter dated 3rd of April, 1975 to Shri M.K. Chatre, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Pune, reporting the results of the analysis of Ghee sent under a memo bearing No. 130/75 dated 18th of Feb., 1975. This report also discloses that the sample was adulterated.

(2.) The learned trial Magistrate acquitted the accused on the ground, among others, that there was non-compliance with R.I. 4 of the Rules framed under the Act which requires the sample to be sent to the Central Food Laboratory at Calcutta in a particular manner. Before the Court there was no evidence that such a compliance had been made. The learned trial Magistrate therefore by his judgment and order dated 30lh of Sept., 1976 acquitted the accused of the offence with which he was charged. The State has challenged the aforesaid order of acquittal.

(3.) Mr. Deshmukh, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing in support of the appeal, was on the threshold disabled from pressing this appeal because of the non-identification of the product sent by the Court in the instant case to the Central Food Laboratory of Calcutta. Apart from the contravention of R.I. 4, I find that the prosecution has not established that the sample which was analysed by the Central Food Laboratory at Calcutta was the same which was sent by the Court in this case. Two incongruities have already been noted by me and may again be reiterated. The date of the memorandum under which the sample was sent in this case is 15th of Feb., 1975. The letter of the Director of the Central Food Laboratory mentions the receipt of the sample sent under a memo dated 18th of Feb., 1975. Secondly, the sample was sent by Shri S.D. Kadam who was the Judicial Magistrate seized of this case whereas the letter of the Director of the Central Food Laboratory mentions that the sample had been sent by Shri M.K. Chatre, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Pune. There has been some mixing of the samples and as a result the accused has been denied the benefit of the analysis of the sample which was sent by him to the Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta. On this ground alone the order of acquittal will have to be upheld.