FOOD INSPECTOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF HYDERABAD, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Vs. MOHINUDDIN AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order of acquittal passed by the VII Metropolitan Magistrate in C.R. No. 16/75. The prosecution -alleges that P.W. 1, the Food Inspector, went to the shop of accused No. 1 along with P.W. 2 and in their presence he purchased 375 grams of Karad oil and paid Rs. 3.75 towards its cost and that accused No. 1 received it and passed the receipt, Ex. P-3. P.W 1 divided the sample of oil purchased from accused No. 1 under Ex. P-3 and put the sample into three bottles. He gave one bottle to the 1st accused, and sent one bottle to the Chemical Analyst and kept with him the remaining bottle. The Analyst opined that the sample sent to him contained cent per cent ground-nut oil. On the basis of the Analyst's report, Ex. P-7, the Food Inspector filed a charge-sheet against accused No. and also against accused Nos. 2 and 3 who are the partners of the firm.

(2.) The learned Magistrate acquitted accused Nos. 2 and 3 on the ground that they are not liable in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Manibai Vs. State of Maharashtra 1973 F.A.C. 349, as the prosecution failed to prove that they were in-charge and are responsible for the conduct of the business. The learned Magistrate also acquitted accused No. 1 on the ground that accused No. 1's explanation is that he did not sell the sample of ground-nut oil to P.W. 1, saying that it is karad oil, and as he was attending to the customers and as the Food Inspector asked that he would take the sample of oil, he permitted him to do so and that P.W. 1, the Food Inspector, took the ground-nut oil for karad oil as all these oils were put side by side and the explanation deserves to be given weight, in view of the discrepancies and improbabilities in the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2.

(3.) Sri Bhaskara Rao, learned Public Prosecutor, contends that the learned Magistrate has not appreciated the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 properly and the finding given by him as regards the evidence of P.Ws, 1 and 2 is perverse and hence the order of acquittal is unsustainable. A perusal of the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 and also the reasons given by the learned Magistrate would clearly show that the finding given by the learned Magistrate for rejecting the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 cannot be said to be unreasonable. It is now well settled that the order of acquittal cannot be interfered with on the mere ground that the High Court can take a contrary view from the evidence brought on record. If two views are possible from the evidence of the witnesses, the one view favourable to the accused should be given weight. In this case, the case of the accused is that when he was attending on the customers, that P.W. I came and wanted to purchase sample of karad oil, he asked him to lake the same from the oils available in the shop, that P.W. 1 took a sample from the ground-nut oil and that the accused did not take the ground-nut oil from the tin and give it to P.W. 1 saying that it was "karad oil". P.W. 2 admitted, that there were customers at the shop and the accused was attending on them by the time they went to the shop and P.W. 1 demanded the sample of karad oil. P.W. 1 was not able to say whether the sample was given weight by balance or by measuring flask. These admissions of P.W. I and P.W. 2 clearly showed that the sample in question was neither weighed by balance nor measured by measuring flask as there were customers and accused was attending on them. If that be so, it would probablise the defence version that P.W.1 himself took the sample from the oils available in the shop. As there were no lables on the tins of oils, P.W. 1 by mistake took the sample from ground-nut oil tin and sent it to the Analyst and that the Analyst gave his opinion that the sample contained cent per cent ground-nut oil and it was, therefore, not adulterated. As P.W. 1 found that the sample sent by him to the Analyst was not adulterated he gave a twist and came forward to say that it was misbranded and the accused sold ground-nut oil for karad oil All these facts, therefore, clearly lend support to the reasonableness of the findings given by the learned Magistrate. Thus the order of acquittal is well founded and it cannot be interfered with.