STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. JAMALUDDIN AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A partnership firm run as M/s. Salauddin Bros, having its shop situated at Shankar Building, Ghatkopar (West) Bombay, deals in sundry articles such as pan masala etc. The first three respondents are the partners in the said shop.

(2.) On Dec. 12, 1975 the Food Inspector visited the said shop sometime in the afternoon and on suspicion collected samples of pan masala, Salli supari and scented munna Chatni. They were purchased on paying the requisite price and were sealed in the presence of the panchas. A receipt was executed in favour of the shop and a panchnama was formally recorded. In due course the three samples of the said three articles were forwarded to the Public Analyst, who certified that they were adulterated not bring in conformity with the relevant rules. He also opined that coal tar dye was found in the samples. It was further alleged that the shop had net obtained any requisite licence as required under section 7(iii) read with rule 50 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and Rules to sell these articles in the said shop.

(3.) On receipt of the Public Analyst's report, requisite sanction was obtained by the Food Inspector in his own name and thereafter he filed the complaint against the shop as also the three partners for offences under section 7(iii) read with rule 50 and rule 29 read with rule 44(g) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules as also under sections 16 and 17 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act in the Court of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate 11th Court, Kurla. Obviously three separate cases were filed in respect of the three commodities and those cases were given different numbers being 106, 107 and 108/W of 1976. On the application tendered by the defence, all the three cases were amalgamated for the sake of convenience as the evidence was identical and all those three cases were disposed of by one common judgment dated 30th July, 1977. Pleading not guilty to the charge, when it was framed after some evidence was recorded, the respondents-accused contended that there has been breach of various mandatory rules by the Food Inspector and it was also contended that the independent panch witnesses have not been examined deliberately by the prosecution.