STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. SHETY SAVALE AND COMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The acquittal of respondent Nos.1 and 2 in this appeal will have to be quashed for the reasons that the trial Court has misinterpreting the ratio of the Supreme Court judgment reported in (Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Kacheroo Mal) (1976)1 S.C.C 412 and relying on the sub-para of plecitum B acquitted the accused. In fact the most relevant paragraph in the reported case of the Supreme Court (ibid) is paragraph 13, which lays down :---

(2.) This is a case in which the Food Inspector purchased groundnut oil and Ral Tandul from accused No. 2, who is arrayed as respondent No. 2 before us. The groundnut oil was found not adulterated. However, on analysis of the Ral Tandul, it was found to be unfit for human consumption as it was infested with germs. The seizure was in the presence of panchas (P.Ws. 2 and 3), who as usual, turned hostile did not support the prosecution. However, there is no dispute that the samples were purchased and seized by Food Inspector (P.W.1) from accused No. 2.

(3.) Mr. Patankar, learned Counsel for respondents Nos. 2 to 4 contended that the trial or the prosecution should be vitiated because Rules 14 and 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (hereinafter called " the Rules") were not followed. It was his contention that it must be stated positively by the Food Inspector that he took successive steps as directed in the Rules, particularly rule 16, while sealing and also while dispatching the seized samples. It was, according to him, a lacuna in the prosecution case and rule 16 being a mandatory rule, any lacuna left by the prosecution in its case must result in benefit being given to the accused.