STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. KORAGA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this appeal the State desires to challenge the order of acquittal recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Vaduj, which was recorded in favour of the respondent No. 2 who was being tried for an offence under section 7(i), 7(ii) and 7(v) read with section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.

(2.) On 11th April, 1974 the complainant Food Inspector, who was duly appointed in that capacity, under the relevant provisions of the Act and was so authorised visited a premises which were being run as a restaurant at Vaduj in the name and style as 'Prabhat Restaurant'. The present respondent No. I who, according to the prosecution, was managing the said restaurant, was present. The proprietor, one Kondiba Godse, was admittedly not present. The complainant noticed that 'bundi ladus' were stored in the cupboard for sale and having suspected that the article was adulterated, he purchased 1500 grams after paying the purchase price and he claims to have followed the other formalities such as dividing the same into three parts and handed over one sample to the present 1st respondent. The necessary bill was issued by the 1st respondent and certain information was also collected from the proprietor subsequently which was a necessary requirement under the Act and the rules. The complainant claims further that he sent one sample to the Public Analyst, Pune, for analysis and in due course he received the report from the Analyst, which is at Exh. 20 on record. The expert opined that the sample contained non-permitted coal tar dye viz. metanil yellow and is thus adulterated under section 2(i)(j) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

(3.) The complainant then apprised his superior who in turn perused the record and was pleased to accord sanction in favour of the complainant. Armed with the said sanction, the complainant thereafter filed a complaint in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Vaduj, against the present 1st respondent as well as the proprietor of the restaurant who was mentioned as accused No. 1.