STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. NAVAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (Oral) - The Food Inspector in charge of Nasik Division visited in the company of other Drug Inspector the shop premises which was being run under the name of Messrs. Edulji & Sons Soda Water Shop. This occurred on the 5th of Oct., 1973 at about 3.45 p.m. This was obviously on a suspicion that adulterated commodities were being sold in the said shop. Two persons were then invited to act as panchas in the shop. Some beverages were found stocked near the soda water bottles. On getting himself confirmed in his suspicion and not being satisfied by the explanation of the accused who was then present that it was nothing but a tonic, the Food Inspector purchased some quantity of the tonic, viz. six bottles, by paying the requisite amount of Rs. 1.80 p. for the said six bottles. He also purchased saccharin. A composite receipt at Exhibit 12 was passed. Thereafter, he divided the said six bottles in three parts and placed them in three different packets and each packet was sealed after observing the formalities. A panchanama was drawn and one packet was handed over to the accused. In token of having received the same, the accused signed a receipt. The panchanama is at Exhibit 15. The joint receipt is at Exhibit 14. Thereafter, the complainant came back to his office and on the 9th of Oct., 1973, he sent one sample packet that was in his custody to the Public Analyst, Poona, alongwith the copy of form No. 7 by registered parcel. The receipt is Exhibit 17. On the same day, he sent by separate registered post a specimen impression of the seal along with form No. 7 for which receipt ha3 been tendered at Exhibit 18. The Food Inspector received the Public Analyst's report at Exhibit 20 on the 13th of Dec., 1973 and he opined that it was adulterated, inasmuch as it showed heavy contamination and was unfit for human consumption and was, therefore, adulterated under section 2(i)(f) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. On the 21st of Dec. 1973, the complainant requested the Municipal Council at lgatpuri to send the necessary information regarding the firm of the accused. Thereafter, he placed all material before the Assistant Commissioner of Nasik Circle and obtained the sanction which is at Exhibit 24. Ultimately, after having been possessed of ail these documents he filed his complaint in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, lgatpuri, being Criminal Case No. 600 of 1974, for an offence under section 7(i) read with section 2(i)(f) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act punishable under section 16(1)(a)(i) of the said Act.

(2.) The accused pleaded not guilty and contended that the Food Inspector did not comply with the requisite mandatory rules under the Act and, therefore, it was not satisfactorily established that the article in question was proved to be adulterated The accused admits that he was running the said shop situated at lgatpuri.

(3.) In the trial Court various contentions were raised and reliance was mainly placed on the breach of Rules 7, 17 and 18. It was contended that the report of the Public Analyst was not received within 60 days as stipulated under the said rules and that the sample and the various documents including the memorandum were not sent separately, Accepting these contentions, the learned Magistrate held that there has been a breach of these rules and in keeping with this finding, he recorded order of acquittal in favour of the accused which is being challenged by the State in this appeal.