STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. RAVINDER KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred by the State, by leave under Sub-Section (iii) read with Sub-Section (1) of Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment and order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bikaner in Criminal Case No. 44/77 thereby acquitting the accused-respondents of offence punishable under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short "the Act").

(2.) The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the accused-respondents were partners of the firm titled "Softy Juice Corner" carrying on the business of manufacturing, storage and sale of softy ice cream at K. E. M. Road, Bikaner. PW-1 Vishnudatt Sharma, Food Inspector, Bikaner on 16-7-76 at about 1 p.m. inspected the above premises and found that the firm was possessed of a valid licence Ex. P. 9 for aforesaid purposes in respect of such articles for food and the accused Shiv Dayal and Loknath were registered partners of the firm. Accused Ravinder Kumar was incharge of the premises conducting business at its corner. Mr. Sharma, Food Inspector, purchased 900 gms. of softy ice cream paying its price of Rs. 15/- It was taken in a separate clean container and then divided into equal three parts which were further taken in three separate clean and dried containers and a preservative was put in the same and the same were packed, fastened and sealed as per the procedure prescribed. The accused Ravinder Kumar was informed by being supplied with Form No. 6 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (for short "the Rules") that the sample was purchased for the purpose of analysis. A checking memo Ex.P.4 on the spot, in presence of the said accused and the witnesses, was prepared. Two packages of part of the sample were deposited with the local Health Authority while the third one, along with the memorandum in Form No. 7, being Ex. P-5, was deposited with the Public Analyst, Bikaner against receipt Ex. P-6. On its analysis, the part of the sample of the icesofty so received for analysis was found to be adulterated since the same did not conform to the prescribed standards of purity. The information of the same, Ex. P-8 sanction of prosecution of the accused-respondents for their commission of aforesaid offence was obtained from the District Magistrate, Bikaner and, lastly, Mr. Sharma, F. I., filed a complaint under the said offence against the accused-persons for their prosecution in the Court of the said trial Court under Section 20 of the Act.

(3.) PW-1 V. D. Sharma, F. I. was examined at the pre-charge stage and, thereafter, all accused-respondents were charged for commission of an offence under Section 7/16 of the Act to which they all pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried and hence, after further cross-examination of PW-1 Mr. Sharma, statements of PW-2 Raman Lal, PW-3 Sita Ram and PW-4 Anil Kumar were recorded. Exs. P-1 to 11 were relied upon.