STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. BHAGVANDAS GOPALDAS BHATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent Bhagvandas Gopaldas Bhate is the owner of a shop styled as Sangli Dairy Farm'' situate on Maruti Road in the town of Sangli. In this shop the respondent deals in milk and milk products including Deshi as well as cream butter. On August 24, 1965, Mr. Dattatraya Balvant Mane (P.W.I), the Food Inspector for the Sangli Municipal area, visited the respondent's aforesaid shop and purchased 500 grains of Deshi butter from the respondent for the purpose of testing whether it was adulterated, in the presence of one panch by name Appasaheb Baburao Magdum. The Food Inspector immediately gave notice in writing to the respondent of his intention to have the sample of his butter analysed by the Public Analyst. It may be stated here that the Food Inspector paid Rs. 4 to the respondent as price for the quantity purchased and obtained a receipt from the respondent. He then divided the quantity of butter into three equal parts. Bach part was then put in a separate dry and clean bottle and was tightly corked and sealed. One of the bottles containing the sample was then handed over by the Food Inspector to the respondent under a receipt. On the same day the Food Inspector sent one of the two remaining samples to the Public Analyst, Poona, and also separately sent a copy of the impression of the seal by post to the Public Analyst as required by the rules. The Public Analyst received the sample on August 31, 1965 and he analysed it on September 3, 1965. As a result of analysis he found that the sample contained 64.6 per cent, milk fat and 22.0 per cent, foreign fat. The Public Analyst accordingly issued a certificate on December 27, 1965 and the same was received by the Municipal Authorities on December 29, 1965. Under para. 11, 05(6) of Appendix B to the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, standard quality of Deshi butter must contain not less than 76 per cent, of milk fat and not more than 20 per cent, of moisture. In this case, as shown by the certificate issued by the Public Analyst the sample seized from the respondent was found to be sub -standard and, therefore, the Food Inspector submitted a report to the Sanitary Committee of the Sangli Municipality through the Chief Officer for sanction to prosecute the accused. The Sanitary Committee granted its sanction on January 10, 1966 and, thereafter, the Food Inspector filed a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate, Sangli, on February 22, 1966, against the respondent for an offence under Section 16 read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

(2.) AT the trial the respondent admitted that the Food Inspector did visit his shop on August 24, 1965, and that he had kept in his shop butter for sale. He, however, stated that the butter that he had kept for sale was cream butter and not Deshi butter and that the Food Inspector had purchased cream butter from him. The respondent denied that any notice was given to him by the Food Inspector that the sample would be sent to the Public Analyst for testing or that the quantity purchased from him was divided into three parts. He also denied any knowledge about the sample having been analysed by the Public Analyst and that it was found to contain 64.6 per cent, of milk fat and 22.0 per cent, of foreign fat.

(3.) ON the above evidence, the learned Judicial Magistrate found in favour of the prosecution that the accused had kept Deshi butter for sale in his shop and that the Food Inspector had purchased a sample of that butter from the accused. It was found that the Food Inspector had divided the quantity purchased into three equal parts and had handed over one part to the accused and had sent one to the Public Analyst for analysis and that the Public Analyst on examination of that sample issued a certificate which showed that the sample contained 64.6 per cent, milk fat and 22.0 per cent, foreign fat. Even so the learned Magistrate held that in view of the long interval between the date of analysis and the date of issue of the report or certificate (exh. 9) it was doubtful whether the sample was really analysed by the Public Analyst on September 3, 1965. In the view of the learned Magistrate it was quite possible that the Public Analyst had analysed the sample sometime by the end of December, 1965, and then the report was sent on December 27, 1965 and that in order to cover up the delay he had overwritten the figure in the entry of the date of analysis, in the register. According to the learned Magistrate, therefore, if the analysis was carried out sometime by about December 27, 1965, it could not be said that the sample of butter had remained in the same condition in which it was when it was collected by the Food Inspector and that this circumstance robbed the Public Analyst's certificate of its evidentiary value. Consequently, he held that there was no evidence left to show that the sample of butter sold by the accused to the Food Inspector contained 64.6 per cent, of milk fat and was, therefore, adulterated. In the result, the learned Magistrate passed an order acquitting the accused. The State has now preferred this appeal against this order of acquittal.