NARAYAN RAJARAM WANI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision application raises an interesting point of law under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. It arises under the following circumstances. The first two revision petitioners-original accused Nos. 1 and 2 are partners of a firm called "M/s. Avinash Narayana and Co." revision petitioner No. 3 original accused No. 3, carrying on business in grocery at Dhule. The Food Inspector of Dhule Municipal Council went to the said shop on 29th November, 1975 and he purchased 600 gms. of eliachi for analysis. The sample was sent to the Public Analyst, Poona. The Public Analyst as appears from his report was of opinion that the sample contained bolatile oil v/w less than 1.0% and that it did not conform to the standards of Badi eliachi seeds as per the rules under the Act and, it was, therefore, adulterated. It is on these facts that the accused were prosecuted for an offence under section 7(i) read with section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.

(2.) The Food Inspector was examined before charge and among other documents he also produced the report of the Public Analyst which was exhibited. The charge being framed the accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and the case was posted for cross-examination of the Food Inspector after charge. In the course of such cross-examination after charge, the Food Inspector was questioned on behalf of the accused as to whether he knew that elaichi dana is produced in cold weather and as to whether he knew from which States. Maharashtra State imports elaichi dana and whether he knew the effect of hot weather on oily substance of elaichi dana and as to whether he knew the difference between organic extraneous matter. To all these questions the Food Inspectors stock reply was that he did not know. That is precisely why the learned Advocate for the accused filed an application on 15th October, 1977 requesting the Court that the Public Analyst, Poona be summoned and be offered to the defence for cross-examination. It was further stated in the application that the defence did not admit the report of the Public Analyst and hence he should be summoned for being subjected to cross-examination by the defence. That application was strongly objected to by the prosecution. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that after the report of the Public Analyst was already exhibited and the same was admissible under section 13 of the Act and therefore, he pointed out that the prosecution did not want to examine the Public Analyst. It was further pointed out that the examination of the prosecution witnesses is always in the discretion of the prosecution and the accused could not compel the prosecution to examine the prosecution witnesses. In particular, it was contended that the application of the accused is not tenable under any law or under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Public Prosecutor concluded his objections by pointing out that if the accused wanted to examine the Public Analyst he may examine him as a defence witness at his own costs.

(3.) The learned Magistrate rejected the application of the accused by observing as under :