SAMBHAJINAGA KOLI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter involves a short but rather of general importance point and in particular, relating to the interpretation of certain provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) On 17th November, 1975, the petitioner-accused, a resident of village Shirdhon in Kolhapur District, was apprehended by the Food Inspector Anant Raghoji, Patil at about 12.15 p.m. while he was carrying a can of buffalo milk on way to lchalkaranji for sale. On disclosing the identity the Inspector purchased 660 mili-litre of milk for the purposes of analysis and followed the formalities as imposed by law. The milk was divided in three parts and one sample was alleged to have been given to the petitioner-accused and one sample was thereafter transmitted to the Public Analyst, Pune for analysis. The report of the Public Analyst was received by the Food Inspector on or about 2nd November, 1975 which indicated that only 3.6% milk fat and 4.7% solid not fat were discovered and, therefore, the expert certified that the commodity in question was adulterated. The specimen was also found no contain 47.8% added water. It is also alleged that the copy of the said report was then sent to the accused in due course. The complainant Food Inspector then appraised the superiors and sanction was issued in his favour for launching the prosecution. After having been armed with the valid sanction the Food Inspector filed his complaint on 25th November, 1976 in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ichalkaranji against the petitioner-accused for having committed an offence under section 16(1)(a)(i) read with section 7(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(3.) The learned Magistrate having been seized of the matter having taken cognizance thereof issued process on the said count on the same day as is evident from an endorsement in the margin of the complaint. Accordingly a summons appears to have been issued to the petitioner-accused which was served in due course and in response thereto the petitioner-accused appeared in the Court. The case that was numbered as Criminal Case No. 296 of 1976 appears to have been adjourned thereafter from time to time without recording any evidence at all. It is on the 5th of January, 1977 that for the first time some progress occurred, in that the petitioner preferred an application Exhibit 5 requesting the learned Magistrate to frame charge at that stage only, on the basis of the documents, if any, and to record his plea to the said charge as he was desirous of pleading guilty, adding further that he admits the contents of the complaint. He annexed a further prayer in the said application that in view of certain circumstances incorporated therein a lenient sentence be imposed. It is not, however, clear from the record as to whether either the Food Inspector or the learned Prosecutor, who has been incharge on behalf of the complainant was either consulted or heard. However, on the very next day, i.e. on 6th January, 1977 the learned Magistrate was pleased to frame a charge against the petitioner for having committed an offence under section 16(1)(a)(i) read with section 7(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, and immediately on the very day, the plea was recorded, and as was expected, the petitioner promptly pleaded guilty to the said charge with a qualification that he claimed leniency. Prompt came the ultimate order of the trial Court in that on the very day the learned Magistrate accepting the said plea of guilty convicted the petitioner of the said offence and also upholding his submission in support of his claim for leniency, the petitioner was sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment till rising of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs. 300/- in default of suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month, presumably under section 246(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as the Code).