STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. SURANBAN GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Appeal is directed against the order of acquittal dated 27th August 'i 975, passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. 17th Court, Mazgaon. Bombay in Criminal Case No 9/S of 1974.

(2.) Accused Nos. 1 to 3 were the partner of accused No. 5, a partnership firm. Accused No. 4 was a godown keeper. Qn 4th July 1973, the Food Inspector visited the godown in question and purchased from accused No. 4, the godown keeper, 600 grams of supari. After completing the usual formalities, accused Nos. 1 to 5 were charge-sheeted under Section 7(1) read with Sections 16 and 17 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The accused pleaded not guilty. The learned Magistrate acquitted all the accused. It is this acquittal, which is challenged before me on behalf of the State by Mr. M. D. Gangakhedkar, the learned Pubic Prosecutor. The accused are represented by Mr. V. D. Mengde. I am informed by the learned Advocates that accused No. 2 has died pending the Appeal.

(3.) Going through the record and the judgment of the learned Magistrate, this is clearly not a case for interference with an appeal against acquittal. At the outset, it may be noted that the Food Inspector himself did not make himself available for complete corss-examination. He was exmined in chief and he was cross-examined only partly and the matter stood adjourned for further cross examination. But the Food Inspector does not appear to have made himself available for further cross-examination. This also is recorded by the learned Magistrate in paragraph 4 of his judgment. Going through the original notes of Roznama, the entries therein appear to be very vague and in certain respects also illegible. However, there is no good reason, not to accept the observation of the learned Magistrate himself who tried the case to the effect that the con plainant, the Food Inspector, Prosecution Witness No. 1,did not attend the Court for his further-cross-examination. This is a very serious infirmity in the case.