STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. SAIBABA TODDY COMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this appeal is to judgment of acquittal rendered by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Parbhani, in a criminal case bearing R. C. C. No. 489 of 1992 whereby respondents came to be acquitted for offences punishable under Sections 7(1), 2(ia), (a) read with Section 16(1)(a)(ii) and Section 17, Sections 7(1), 2(ia), (m) read with Section 16(1)(ai) and Section 17 along with Section 7(i), Section 2(ia)(h) read with Section 16(1- A)(i) and Section 17 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act', 1954.

(2.) Indisputably, the complainant - Food Inspector Shri Sudhakar Patil was duly appointed to work as Food Inspector for local area of Parbhani district. The Chief Officer of Municipal Council, Parbhani was appointed as local health authority vide Government Notification published in the Government Gazette on 15th April, 1983. It is an admitted fact that the respondent No. 1 is a partnership proprietary concern of which the respondent No. 2 is the Managing Partner. The respondent No. 3 is servant of the respondent No. 1. It is undisputed that the respondents deal in business of collecting and vending "Toddy". The respondent No. 1 is duly licensed Toddy Shop situated in ward No. 7 at Parbhani.

(3.) Briefly stated, the prosecution case before the trial Court was that on 29th January, 1992, the Food Inspector -Sudhakar Patil along with panch Vithalrao Shinde visited the premises of the respondent No. 1 at about 3 p. m. The respondent No. 3 was present at the shop. The Food Inspector introduced himself to the respondent No. 3. His inspection of the shop revealed that there were 20 moulded plastic crates containing 240 bottles of Toddy meant for sale. The Toddy bottles did not bear any label nor they were corked. The respondent No. 3 informed the Food Inspector that the Toddy was filled in the bottles from the same barrel in that morning at about 9 a. m. The Food Inspector informed the respondent No. 3 of his intention to purchase samples of the Toddy for the purpose of analysis. He served a notice under Section 14A, calling upon the respondent No. 3 to furnish information as regards purchase bill of the Toddy. The respondent No. 3 furnished information that the Toddy was extracted from trees of "Tad" in the same morning and was brought to the shop for sale. There was no purchase bill of the Toddy in the shop. The Food Inspector emptied three (3) Toddy bottles in one empty, dry and clean utensil. He thereafter, measured 15 mls. Toddy which was poured in another dry, clean and empty utensil. He purchased the 15 mls. Toddy from the respondent No. 3 on payment of Rs. 10/- being price thereof as per the market rate. The respondent No. 3 issued a receipt in respect of sale of the Toddy. The Food Inspector served a notice on the respondent No. 3 in Form-VI and under Rule-12 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (for short, "PFA Rules"). He again measured 500 mls. Toddy from the purchased stock of 1500 mls. each and filled the same in three (3) empty, clean and dry bottles. In each of the sample bottle, he added half gram (0.5 mg. ) copper sulphate as preservative. Thereafter, each of the sample bottle was tightly corked. The mouths of the bottles were affixed with "lakh" seals. The bottles were affixed with labels signed by the Food Inspector, panch and the respondent No. 3. The sample bottles were thereafter separately wrapped in thick papers which were duly pasted with gum as required under the rules. The samples were horizontally and vertically tied by means of thick thread of twill. They were each affixed with "lakh" seals at four (4) places, on the knot, bottom, upper and other side. Then the sample bottles were signed by the Food Inspector and the panch as well as the respondent No. 3.