STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. SHESHANARAYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Criminal Appeal No. 1177 of 1976 has been filed by the original complainant viz., the Food Inspector, Municipal Council, against the order dated 31st July, 1976 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jalna, acquitting the accused of offence under Sec. 7(1) read with Sec. 16(l)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act in Criminal Case No. 808 of 1974. Criminal Appeal No. 1157 of 1976 has been filed by the State against the same aforesaid order of acquittal. The said appeal has, however, been admitted by this Court subject to limitation, vide this Court's order dated 23rd Nov., 1976. Criminal Application No. 2904 of 1976 has been filed by the State for condonation of delay of 205 days in filing the above criminal appeal.

(2.) After hearing Mr. R.T. Walavalkar, the learned Public Prosecutor for the State, and Mr. A.B. Naik, the learned Advocate for the accused, and considering the reasons mentioned in the State's application for condonation of delay, I am inclined to condone the same. Delay in filing the above appeal against the order of acquittal of the learned Magistrate is thus condoned.

(3.) Taking up the aforesaid two criminal appeals against the order of acquittal, I find no reason to interfere with the said order. This is a case where the accused was prosecuted under the provisions of section 7(i) read with section 16(l)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The article in question was milk. The learned Magistrate has come to a finding that the prosecution failed to prove compliance of Rules 17 and 18 of the Rules under the aforesaid Act. Looking at the state of the record as was produced before me, I do not find any reason to take any different view of the matter than that taken by the learned Magistrate. There is no cogent evidence on record to show that the provisions of Rules 17 and 18 were complied with by the prosecution. Under Rule 17, the containers of the samples in question have to be dispatched in the manner laid down in clauses (a) and (b) thereof, while under Rule 18, a copy of the memorandum and a specimen impression of the seal u ed to seal the packet have to be sent to the Public Analyst separately by registered post or delivered to him or to any person authorised by him. The record does not indicate compliance, if I may say so, even reasonably of the aforesaid two Rules. Without going into larger question whether the said Rules are directory or mandatory, the present appeals can be disposed of on the short ground that even approximate compliance of the said Rules has not been satisfactorily established. The very object of the aforesaid Rules cannot consequently be said to have been even remotely achieved. If so, the accused would certainly be entitled to an acquittal. The charge, in the circumstances of this case, cannot be said to have been brought home to the accused. The possibility of the seals being tampered with and/or replaced and/or substituted also cannot consequently be completely ruled out. The learned Magistrate was, in my opinion, therefore, right in coming to the conclusion that there is, in the present case, a violation of Rules 17 and 18. There is also considerable substance in the contention raised on behalf of the accused that no specimen impression of the seal appears to have at all reached the Public Analyst. Ex. 81 on which reliance was sought to be placed by the prosecution in the aforesaid behalf only shows receipt of samples in good condition. There is no indication from the Public Analyst of the receipt of specimen impression of the seal. In all these circumstances, it would not be possible for this Court to interfere with the impugned order of acquittal.