STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. HANSRAJ GANGAJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 2nd November, 1974 Manohar Ratan Sawant, a Food Inspector of Bombay, purchased 400 grams poppy Khas-Khas from the shop of the respondent in this appeal (hereafter referred to as the accused). After dividing the quantity purchased into three parts and after packing the same, he sent one part to the Public Analyst who has by his report dated 12th November, 1974 mentioned that the sample sent to him was on visual examination found to contain large number of living larva and weevils. He gave his opinion that the sample was adulterated within the meaning of section 2(i)(f) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.

(2.) On these facts, the accused was prosecuted for an offence punishable under section 16 read with section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act in Case No. 4/AD/75 in the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, 25th Court, Mazgaon. In support of its case the prosecution examined not only the Food Inspector but also the Public Analyst who had submitted the report referred to above. The learned trial Magistrate by his judgment and order dated 24th October, 1975 acquitted the accused of the offence with which he was charged. This order of acquittal is challenged by the State in the present appeal which is supported before me by the learned Public Prosecutor Mr. S.B. Patil.

(3.) Mr. Patil pointed out that the reasons given by the learned trial Magistrate for acquitting the accused are totally untenable. The learned trial Magistrate was of the opinion that since the Food Inspector did not notice weevils at the time he took the sample, it must be held that the sample which was sold to him did not contain weevils. The learned trial Magistrate relied upon what he called the common knowledge that the eggs of these insects are miscroscopic and not visible to the naked eye. He therefore, proceeded to hold that at best the sample sold by the accused to the Food Inspector could be said to be have contained eggs and not weevils. In this view of the case that he took, he acquitted the accused. Mr. Patil says that this is wholly a wrong approach adopted by the learned trial Magistrate. The Food Inspector, says Mr. Patil, is not expected to examine a sample which he purchases because ultimately that sample is to be subjected to an analysis by a qualified analyst, whose opinion will be the basis of the prosecution under this Act. If therefore, the Food Inspector had said nothing about the detection of the weevils in the sample which he purchased, that cannot be regarded as an infirmity in the prosecution evidence. There is considerable substance in this contention of Mr. Patil.