PURUSHOTTAM Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these revisions are disposed of by this common judgment. On 27th Nov., 1980, applicant Hari s/o Bhikaji Shinde was found in possession of the buffalo milk. P.W. 1 Kamlakar Pandilwar, Food Inspector of the Nagpur Municipal Corporation stopped him when he was found carrying the milk. 660 ml. buffalo milk was purchased from Hari on disclosing his identity and a receipt was accordingly passed. The samples of the milk purchased from Hari was then put in different bottles and the necessary Panchanama and the formalities as are required to be done were made in presence of two panchas. Kamlakar took Hari with the milk to Laxmi Restaurant. This was obviously done by him on the statement made by Hari. When a notice as is required under section 14-A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 was given to Hari on the reverse of which Hari stated that he is not the owner of the milk and that he is merely a carrier of milk, to be delivered as a servant of one Purushottam s/o Baliram. That document is at Exh. 37. After reaching Laxmi Restaurant the owner was not available but one Amarnath Narayan Thombre, a servant was present. The Food Inspector viz., Pandilwar recorded in writing the statement of Amarnath on the same day which is at Exh. 43. Amarnath stated that daily the buffalo milk is given to Laxmi Restaurant @ Rs. 2.75 ps. per litre. As usual on the date of incident also, litre milk was accepted. It is signed by Amarnath and also endorsed by Hari to the fact that he delivered 9J litre buffalo milk in presence of Food Inspector.

(2.) Milk sample was sent to the Public Analyst, Nagpur for analysis. Necessary report was obtained. The Food Inspector during the course of investigation found that the milk belonged to Purushottam Baliram Senad of village Vihirgaon in Nagpur district. After the necessary investigation, the Food Inspector filed a complaint in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagpur for taking action against Hari and Purushottam for selling adulterated buffalo milk punishable under section 7 and 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

(3.) During the trial, prosecution examined Kamlakar Pandilwar P.W. 1 as the main prosecution witness, P.W. 2 Dnyaneshwar Ghatole was examined as a Punch for the seizure and selling of the milk sample. P.W. 3 Abdul Halim, a clerk from the office of the Nagpur Municipal Corporation has been examined to prove the dispatch of the intimation to the Public Analyst and health authorities. The accused denied the offence. Accused Hari examined one Nathu Pande as a defence witness. He stated that he is a resident of Vihirgaon and Hari does not have any buffalo with him. In the cross-examination, he admitted that Purushottam was supplying milk to Nagpur. One Daliram was servant of Purushottam who used to regularly carry the milk but Daliram was ill during the last 10-15 days and therefore services of Hari were engaged by Purushottam. On consideration of the prosecution and the defence evidence, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate gave a finding that Hari was the vendor of the milk and he was selling the milk belonging to Purushottam. It has been held by the trial court that Purushottam is the owner of the Milk and he was selling it through Hari and, therefore both were held guilty for contravention of Rule 44(b) and sections 7(i) and (v) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules and Act, and convicted them under section 16 of the aforesaid Act and sentenced them to under to R.I. for 30 days and further to pay fine of Rs. 700.00 in default to suffer R.I. for one month.