STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. CHANDANMAL BHARINDWAL AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State of Maharashtra has filed this appeal against the order of acquittal dated Nov. 25, 1976 in Criminal Case No. 284 of 1974 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, at Igatpuri.

(2.) The Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 hereinafter referred to as "the accused, are the partners in a hotel business which they carry on in the name and style of Messrs. Shri Satyanarayan Prakash Hotel at Ghoti (B.K.), Taluka Igatpuri, District Nasik. On May 23, 1973, the complainant Food Inspector Mr. Harida Narayan Ugale, (P. W. 1) visited the hotel of the accused No. 1 who was present in the hotel at the relevant time, expressed his willingness to purchase the sample of ground-nut oil for the purposes of analysis. The Food Inspector accordingly purchased 375 gms. of ground-nut oil in the presence of the panchas on paying Rs. 3.l0p. towards its price. The Food Inspector thereafter divided the said sample into three equal parts and poured into three neat, clean and dried bottles. He also sealed all these bottles and pasted the labels on the same after obtaining the signatures on the labels. One sealed bottle of sample was handed over to the accused No. 1 the Food Inspector thereafter sent the seated sample bottles to the Public Analyst, Poona, after following all the procedure as required under the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the Rules made thereunder. On receipt of the report of the Public Analyst, the necessary sanction was obtained for prosecuting the accused. The present complaint thus came to be filed against the accused for offence punishable under Sections 7 (i)/16(1)(a)(i) and Sec. 17(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, hereinafter referred to as "the P.F.A. Act". The defence of the accused is that of denial. They however admitted that they are the partners of the hotel known as Shri Satyanarayan Prakash Hotel. According to them, they deal in sweet-meat food articles and they are not the dealers or do any business in the ground-nut oil. According to them the sample alleged to have been taken by the Food Inspector was from the tin which was kept back side of the chair of the shops counter, and it was kept for preparation of the food articles for the hotel and not for sale as such.

(3.) The prosecution, in support of its case relied upon the evidence of the complainant P. W. 1 Food Inspector Ugale along with the evidence of Panch witnesses P.W. 2 Shrikishan and P.W. 3 Vasudeo Chandrakant. The prosecution also placed on the record, the report of the Public analyst along with the various acknowledgement receipts and the panchnamas.