STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. RAMDAYAL RAMCHANDRA BANGAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order of acquittal recorded by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate of Pune in Criminal Case No. 8337 of 1974 is challenged by the State in this appeal.

(2.) The respondent (hereinafter referred to as the accused) was prosecuted in that case for an offence punishable under section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The accused is the Proprietor of a confectionery shop situated in Shukrawar Peth, Pune. On 28th November, 1973 the Food Inspector of Pune one Mr. S.B. Jadhav purchased from the accused 600 gms. of what has been described by the Food Inspector himself as Shrikhand Goli. It was at one stage asserted that they were purchased from a packet which bore the name "Mona Sweets". Two hundred grams of the commodity so purchased was sent to the Public Analyst who reported that it was adulterated because it contained 1.68% total ash and 1.38% ash insoluble in hydrochloric acid. According to the standard which appears to have been applied by the Public Analyst, total ash should not be more than 1.5% and ash insoluble in dilute hydrochloric acid should not be more than 0.2%. He gave the opinion that the sample analysed by him was adulterated within the meaning of section 2(i)(c) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

(3.) The learned trial Magistrate was of the view that Shrikhand Goli purchased from the accused were covered by Item No. 25 in Rule 22 which refers to hard boiled sugar confectionery among other things. The minimum quantity of sample of hard boiled sugar confectionery which, according to Rule 22, should be sent to the Public Analyst is 300 gms. In the instant case admittedly 200 gms. were sent to the Public Analyst. It may, however be noted that Item No. 25 in which hard boiled sugar confectionery is included was inserted in Rule 22 with effect from 23rd May, 1974. I have already mentioned above that the offence alleged against the accused took place on 28th November, 1973. The learned trial Magistrate, however, persuaded himself to hold that the insertion of Item No. 25 in Rule 22 should be looked upon with retrospective effect and if this is so, he said, the quantity sent to the Public Analyst was not what was to be sent. Relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in (Rejaldas v. State of Maharashtra) A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 146, the learned trial Magistrate returned a verdict of not guilty. This he did by this judgment and order dated 23rd January, 1976.