STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. RAMJI DEVSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order of discharge passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate of the 2nd Court in Bombay in Case No. 87/s of 1976 is sought to be challenged by the State in this Petition. Originally there were 5 Respondents in this petition who were also the 5 accused in the court below. They will here-inafter be referred to as "the accused" . Accused No. 1 has unfortunately expired pending the proceedings in the court below and his name originally included in this petition has since been deleted.

(2.) According to the prosecution, an Inspector of the Food and Drugs Administration paid a visit to the shop of the accused on 3rd July 1973 & purchased from him 600 gms of commodity which has been described as Mitha powder, After following the procedure of dividing the sample into three parts, one sample was sent to the public Analyst, whose report at Exh. 5 says that sample sent to him showed the presence of Dulcin and Sodium Cyclamate. In the Court below, before the charge the prosecution examined the Food Inspector and the Public Analyst. After these two witnessess were exmined, the prosecution made an application for sending another sample to the Director of the Central Food Laboratory at Calcutta for analysis by him.

(3.) This application was granted by the learned Magistrate and in due course the report of the Director ot the central Food Laboratory was received This report shows that the total sugars contained in the sample were made up of 60.1% of Lactose and 30 per. of Saccharin Neither Starch nor canesugar was found in the sample. The opinion of the Director is that the Mitha Powder sent to him was adulterated. It may be mentioned again that the Public Analyst's report showed that the sample sent to him contained 1.27 % of Sodium Cyclamate and 16.4% of Saccharin and 1 % of Dulcin Neither Sodium Cyclamate nor Dulcin was directed by the Director of Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta, in the sample sent to him. After the receipt of the report of the Director, the question arose as to whether there was a case for the prosecution to go for trial. The learned Trial Magistrate found that the great differrence between the findings of the Public Analyst and the Director warranted an order of discharge. Though the report of the director mentioned that the sample sent to him was adulterated it was not shown in what particular sense or manner it was adulterated. The Learned Magistrate also noticed that there was no standard prescribed for Mitha Powder. Taking this view, the learned Magistrate, by his order dated 19th October 1976 discharged the accused.