STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. HIRALAL MAGANLAL DOSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of an order of acquittal recorded in favour of the accused by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jaduj, in Criminal Case No. 65 of 1979, lodged against the accused under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (fort short the Act).

(2.) The accused have been acquitted on the only ground that the article or the sample involved was Ajawan which the Trial Magistrate held to be not an article of food and not covered by the Act. We are surprised at the finding of the trial Magistrate that Ajawan is not an article of food. The very definition of food under the Act must include within its sweep Ajawan. Still further, Appendix B of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules categorically includes under A. 05.23. Ajawan which has been clarified to mean dried ripe seeds of Trechyspermum ammi (Linn) Sprague. Mr. Chitnis, learned Advocate for the accused persons, appearing before us has frankly stated that he cannot support the finding of the trial Magistrate that Ajawan is not an article of food. He concedes that Ajawan is in fact an article of food and covered by the Act.

(3.) Mr. Chitnis, however, submits that the sale in this case was on 18th September, 1978 and the order of acquittal was recorded in favour of the accused on 23rd March, 1981. Almost ten years have elapsed since the date of the sale and over seven years since the order of acquittal. He consequently submits that this Court may not, therefore, interfere. We are inclined to agree. However, it is not as if mere lapse of time is a bar for the courts interference in an acquittal appeal. Much, however, would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case as also on the nature of the offence and the gravity thereof. In the instant case considering the long lapse of time and the minor character of the infraction as per the report, Exhibit 25 of the Public Analyst, we are not inclined to interfere in this acquittal appeal.