STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. GOPAL AMRUT WANKHEDE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent owns a shop in the name of M/s. Sunil Kirana Stores at Anjangaon Surji, district Amravati. On 5-7-1984, Food Inspector Anand Sadashivrao Tayde visited the said shop, disclosed his identity and informed him that he wants to take sample of Groundnut oil for analysis Accordingly, the sample was taken after following the proper procedure. Exh. 13 is the copy of Appendix D from the Food Inspector and it contains an acknowledgement of the accused to the effect that the Food Inspector had purchased the said oil for the purpose of analysis. The accused had not disclosed any details of warranty and source of purchase. A panchanama (Exh. 16) was made, which sits out in detail how the sample was taken and divided into three equal parts and how they were sealed. Thereafter the sample was forwarded to the Public Analyst and finally a report from the Public Analyst was received by the Food Inspector. After obtaining due consent as required under the law, the accused was prosecuted on a charge under section 7 (i) r/w section 2 (ia) (a) and under section 7 r/w rule 44 (e) punishable under section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (for short referred to as the Act.

(2.) THE learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amravati acquitted the accused on 2 grounds : Firstly on the ground that the procedure relating to taking of the sample was not properly followed and secondly on the ground that the Public Analyst has not given any details of his qualifications and therefore, the report was not acceptable.

(3.) THE panch, who was examined in support of the prosecution case turned hostile. He purported to say that nothing was done before him and no proper sample was taken and that he just affixed his signature on a paper and that he had not read the contents of panchanama.