STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. HIRJI DHANJI SHAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision application is filed by the State against acquittal of the respondent from the charge punishable under Section 9 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act read with Section 2 (ia) (m) read with Rule 5a punishable under Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

(2.) THE main ground for the acquittal stated by the learned Magistrate in Case No. 218/s/82 is that the Consent Order issued by the competent authority does not contain sufficient materials. According to Magistrate, it is only in a rhetoric form and there is no indication in the certificate that the Officer who issued the same has applied his mind. The learned Magistrate while acquitting respondent relied upon the decision of this Court in Gahininath Bhimrao Patekar v. State of Maharashtra, reported in 1988 Cri LJ 48.

(3.) I heard learned Prosecutor Shri. Dinesh Adsule and counsel for the respondent. On going through the consent letter, which is Exh. A, I simply cannot differ with the Magistrate. I have no doubt in my mind that the order is lacking proper application of mind. The consent order says that Jt. Commissioner, Greater Bombay, Food and Drug Administration has considered the report of the Public Analyst and came to the conclusion that this is a fit case for prosecution. The order is lacking relevant materials as to on what point of food articles have been referred to the Public Analyst, what are the materials to be considered while issuing the order etc. Definition of Section 2 (ia) of the Act will give sufficient indications about the various kinds of adulteration of food articles and it envisaged the duty of the officer to state in the order in what way the food is adulterated either in nature or substance or in quality. As indicated in Section 2 what is the opinion of the Public Analyst about these three factors of adulterations and his opinion has been considered by the Officer. Unless these materials are contained in the order, we cannot say there is a proper application of mind in giving consent under Section 2 of the Food Adulteration Act. In view of this, I fully endorse the view of the learned Magistrate that the order contained in this case lacks proper application of mind. The learned Magistrate is justified in discharging the accused on the ground of defective consent order. In the result, Revision Application fails and it is dismissed. Application dismissed.