STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. CHHAGAN NATH RANE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this appeal the State of Maharashtra has moved this Court for enhancement of sentence imposed on the respondent by the trial Court. The learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, First Court, Jalgaon, by his order dated 21st Sept., 1976 convicted the respondent on his own plea of guilty for an offence under section 7(i) and 7(v) read with section 16(1) (a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, hereinafter referred to as "the Act" and was sentenced to S.I. till the rising of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs. 1500.00, in default R.I. for six months.

(2.) On 24th Sept., 1974, the Food Inspector, P.W. 1, Shri Chaudhari, accosted one Hira Popat Patil within the limits of Jalgaon who was found carrying two cans on a handcart and proceeding towards Railway Station, Jalgaon. Both the cans contained milk. On being interrogated, the said person disclosed that the present respondent is the owner of the said articles and that the cans were meant to be sent to Thana. Consequent to this disclosure, the complainant called the respondent on the spot and on his arrival, the complainant took sample of 660 ml. of milk found in one can from the respondent for the purchase price of Rs. 1.20. A receipt was issued. A panchnama was drawn and the other formalities were observed. The sample was divided into three dry bottles and all were properly sealed and one part was handed over to the respondent. The respondent being called upon to furnish necessary information as required in Form No. VI and the concerned documents were signed by the respondent, one of the samples was then sent to the Public Analyst, Pune, by observing procedure. After the receipt of the Public Analyst's report, a copy thereof was sent to the respondent. The requisite sanction for prosecution was obtained and thereafter the complainant filed his complaint against the respondent under the said counts for having committed breach of the provisions contained in section 2(i)(c) and 2(1)(1) of the Act.

(3.) The complainant's evidence was recorded before charge on 8th Dec., 1975. The charge was framed and plea was recorded on 4th May, 1976, when the respondent pleaded not guilty. It appears that the charge incorporated the breach of clause 2(l)(c) of the Act. Thereafter, it further appears that having realised that the said clause would not be applicable, the charge came to be amended and a plea to the amended charge was recorded on 4th Sept., 1976 and it is at that stage that the respondent pleaded guilty to the said amended charge which attracted clause 2(1)(1) of the Act, meaning thereby that clause (l)(c) was thereby deleted, which in terms meant that the respondent was discharged of the said offence.