State Of ... vs Vijay S/O Udhaorao Madurwar And ...

Citation : 2017 Latest Caselaw 1530 Bom
Judgement Date : 7 April, 2017

Bombay High Court
State Of ... vs Vijay S/O Udhaorao Madurwar And ... on 7 April, 2017
Bench: I.K. Jain
 CRI. APPEAL NO.235.02.odt                    1
      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                         NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

                    CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.235 OF 2002



 The State of Maharashtra,
 through Mr. R.D. Pawar,
 Food Inspector, Food and
 Drugs Administration (M.S.),
 Chandrapur, Tahsil and
 District-Chandrapur.                              ..               APPELLANT



                               .. VERSUS ..


 1]     Vijay s/o Udhaorao Madurwar,
        Aged about 51 years, Vendor,
        Partner & Nominee of M/s. Vijay
        Kirana Stores, Main Road,
        Gondpipari, Distt. Chandrapur.


 2]     M/s. Vijay Kirana Stores,
        Main Road, Gondpipri,
        District-Chandrapur.                       ..           RESPONDENTS




                               ..........
 Ms. T.H. Udeshi, APP for Appellant-State.
 None for the respondents.
                               ..........




::: Uploaded on - 12/04/2017                      ::: Downloaded on - 13/04/2017 00:31:23 :::
  CRI. APPEAL NO.235.02.odt                    2

                                CORAM : KUM. INDIRA JAIN, J.
                                DATED : APRIL 07, 2017.


 ORAL JUDGMENT


                This appeal takes an exception to the judgment

 and order dated 18.10.2001 passed by the learned Chief

 Judicial Magistrate, Chandrapur in Regular Criminal Case

 No.451/1998, thereby acquitting the accused of the offences

 punishable under section 7 (i) r/w section 2 (ia) (a)

 punishable under section 16 (1) (a) (ii) and under section 7

 (i) r/w section 2(ia) (m) punishable under section 16 (1) (a)

 (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954

 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act')



 2]             Prosecution case, in brief, is as under :

                (a)             Accused no.1 is the proprietor of accused

                no.2-firm. The firm deals in stocking, sale of food

                articles. On 4.8.1996, complainant-Food Inspector

                PW-1 Rajendra Pawar had been to the shop of

                accused at Gondpipri. Accused was present in the

                shop.          Complainant disclosed his identity and

                intention. He purchased 450 grams of linseed oil

                which          was   kept   for   sale   by     accused          no.1.



::: Uploaded on - 12/04/2017                        ::: Downloaded on - 13/04/2017 00:31:23 :::
  CRI. APPEAL NO.235.02.odt                  3
                Accordingly, 450 grams oil was sold by accused

                no.1 to the Food Inspector.          Notice in form No.VI

                was given to the accused by the Food Inspector. It

                was followed by notice under Section 14-A of the

                Act.

                (b)            On 13.9.1996, Public Analyst reported

                Local Health Authority that sample of linseed oil

                does not confirm to the standard as per the

                Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.                     After

                obtaining consent from the Joint Commissioner,

                Food       and    Drugs    Administration,         complainant

                instituted       a    complaint    before        the       learned

                magistrate.



 3]             Trial court framed the charge against the accused.

 They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.                                The

 defence         of    accused       was   of simple denial and                false

 implication.          According to the accused, oil was purchased

 from Jyoti Oil Mill, Nagpur. This fact was disclosed to the

 Food Inspector by accused no.1 at the time of inspection.

 The said Jyoti Oil Mill is not arrayed as an accused in the

 complaint.           Accused submitted that the stringent procedure

 prescribed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act



::: Uploaded on - 12/04/2017                      ::: Downloaded on - 13/04/2017 00:31:23 :::
  CRI. APPEAL NO.235.02.odt            4
 and Rules framed thereunder has not been followed by the

 prosecution and no offence, as alleged, is made out.



 4]             In support of its case, prosecution examined in all

 seven witnesses including the complainant, panch witnesses

 and Assistant Commissioner as well as Joint Commissioner

 of Food and Drugs Administration. Considering the evidence

 of prosecution witnesses and material placed on record, trial

 court came to the conclusion that in view of the non

 compliance of various procedural formalities prescribed

 under the Act and the Rules, offences have not been

 established against the accused.         In consequence thereof,

 accused came to be acquitted.         Being aggrieved, the order

 of acquittal has been assailed in this appeal.



 5]             It is pertinent to note that notice under section

 14-A of the Act was issued to accused no.1. Under section

 14-A of the Act, person from whom the sample of food

 articles is taken, has to make an application to the court

 within a period of ten days for getting analysis done from

 the Central Food Laboratory. In the present case, notice of

 seven days was given to the accused no.1. The provisions of

 Section 14-A are mandatory in nature and reduction of the



::: Uploaded on - 12/04/2017               ::: Downloaded on - 13/04/2017 00:31:23 :::
  CRI. APPEAL NO.235.02.odt             5
 period of ten days to seven days is not permissible. It is also

 not left to the discretion of the notice issuing authority.



 6]             Another draw back in the instant case is that three

 sample bottles were not shown to the panch witnesses. It is

 stated by panch witnesses that they had not seen bottles

 brought by the Food Inspector. Complainant was duty bound

 to show the empty bottles to the panch witnesses before

 filling samples. This is another violation of the mandatory

 rules.



 7]             It is admitted by the complainant that he did not

 take linseed oil sample from the sealed tin. There is no

 evidence on record to show that jar or steel pot (ganj) was

 clean before the sample was taken.                 In this situation,

 observations of the trial court that possibility of mixing the

 oil are in consonance with the evidence on record.



 8]             It is significant to note that accused no.1 disclosed

 to the complainant at the time of visit itself that oil was

 purchased from the manufacturer Jyoti Oil Mill, Nagpur.

 Despite disclosure of the name of manufacturer by the

 seller, complainant did not verify and did not take any action



::: Uploaded on - 12/04/2017                ::: Downloaded on - 13/04/2017 00:31:23 :::
  CRI. APPEAL NO.235.02.odt             6
 against the manufacturer. It is a serious draw back left in

 the prosecution case.



 9]             Further on going through the judgment of the trial

 court, it can be seen that the entire evidence and material

 came to be discussed in detail. The view taken by the trial

 court is a possible view.         No perversity is noticed in the

 reasonings recorded by the learned magistrate. In this view

 of the matter, no interference is warranted in appeal.

 Hence, the following order :

                               ORDER

Criminal Appeal stands dismissed. No costs.

(Kum. Indira Jain, J.) Gulande, PA ::: Uploaded on - 12/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 13/04/2017 00:31:23 :::