SHANKERLAL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In Criminal Case No. 1666 of 1974 four accused were prosecuted for an offence punishable under section 16(1)(a)(i) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Accused No. 1 was the father of accused Nos. 2 and 3 and accused No. 4 was side to be a partnership firm consisting of the other accused. The case was on the basis of a complaint filed by the Food Inspector of Aurangabad who, the prosecution alleged, purchased 450 gms. of what was sold as Shaha Jira. It was, however, found that it was not Shaha Jira at all but it was Ghas Jira a commodity used for treating the animals medically. According to the prosecution on learning from one Gopikishan of a different village altogether that Shaha Jira was being sold by the firm of the accused in an adulterated form, the Food Inspector of Aurangabad accompanied by the Assistant Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, Gopikishan, and a panch went to the shop of the accused. Gopikishan made a sort of reconnaissance trip to the shop and purchased 250 gms. of Shaha Jira from accused Nos. 1 and 2 who were then present in the shop. Thereafter the Food Inspector made a statutory purchase by requiring accused No. 1 to sell him 450 gms. of what was branded as Shah Jira. The sample sent to the Public Analyst showed that what was sold was not Shaha Jira but Ghas Jira. On these allegations the accused were prosecuted in the case referred to above.

(2.) The defence of the accused as disclosed in the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses was that what was sold to the Food Inspector was sold not as Shaha Jira but as Ghas Jira. The learned trial magistrate accepted the prosecution case in so far as it related to accused Nos. 1 and 2 and convicted them under section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act, sentencing each of them to rigorous imprisonment for six months and to a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In default of the payment of fine further rigorous imprisonment for one month was directed. This order of conviction and sentence was challenged by accused Nos. 1 and 2 in an appeal preferred by them being Criminal appeal No. 11 of 1977.

(3.) It may be mentioned at this stage that accused No. 4 was acquitted by the learned trial Judge as it was not shown to be a Company and the name of accused No. 3 was deleted as he was a minor. The learned Sessions Judge of Aurangabad who heard the appeal partly allowed the same by acquitting accused No. 2. He, however, confirmed the conviction and sentence of accused No. 1. Accused No. 1 has now approached this Court invoking its revisional jurisdiction by contending that the order of conviction and sentence passed by the two courts below is improper and illegal.