apeal411of02.odt 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.411 OF 2002
State of Maharashtra
through Shri. D.T. Sangatsaheb,
Food Inspector, Food & Drug
Administration (M.S.), Chandrapur,
Tahsil & District Chandrapur. .APPELLANT
...V E R S U S...
Narendra s/o. Pullanaji Chandekar,
aged about 34 years,
Proprietor of M/s. Narendra Kiran Stores,
Pombhurna, Tahsil Gondpipari,
District. Chandrapur ...RESPONDENT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. A.V. Palshikar, Additional Public Prosecutor for appellant.
Mr. Syed Owais Ahmed, counsel for respondent.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM:
ROHIT B. DEO, J.
DATE:
NOVEMBER 06, 2017 ORAL JUDGMENT:
The State is in appeal challenge the judgment and order dated 13.2.2002, in Regular Criminal Case 225 of 1993 delivered by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandrapur, by and under which the respondent Narendra Chandekar is acquitted of ::: Uploaded on - 07/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 09/11/2017 01:44:46 ::: apeal411of02.odt 2 offence punishable under section 7(i) read with section 2(ia) (a) punishable under section 16(1)(a)(ii), section 7(i) read with section 2(ia) (m) punishable under section 16(1)(a)(i), section 7(v) read with Rule 32(f) punishable under section 16(1)(a)(ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and Rules made thereunder.
2 Heard Shri. A.V. Palshikar, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant / State and Shri. Syed Owais Ahmed, the learned counsel for the respondent. 3 Shri. A.V. Palshikar, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has committed an error in faulting the prosecution for not examining the wholesale dealer from whom the accused purchased the biscuits in question. Shri. A.V. Palshikar, the learned APP would further submit that finding recorded by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate that the prosecution did not produce any material on record to show that an opportunity was given to the accused to exercise the statutory right to demand that the sample be sent for analysis to the Central Food Laboratory. The learned APP invited my attention to the evidence of PW 1 - Food Inspector, who has ::: Uploaded on - 07/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 09/11/2017 01:44:46 ::: apeal411of02.odt 3 deposed that on 19.4.1993, the Local Health Authority informed the accused about filing of the prosecution in the Court of Law and that the accused may send sample for analysis if so desired. The learned APP Shri Palshikar, would further submit that after instituting the prosecution, the PW 1 intimated to the Local Health Authority by letter dated 24.4.1993 and in response to the said letter the Local Health Authority sent an intimation to the accused alongwith copy of the test report vide letter dated 29.4.1993.
Shri. A.V. Palshikar, the learned APP for the State would further submit that the finding of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate that the report of the analysis does not mention that the food article is injuries to health, is tenable since admittedly, the sample of Glucose Bisuits do not confirm to the statutorily prescribed standards and, is therefore, deemed adulterated under section 2(i) and (m) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act ("Act" for short).
4 Per contra, Shri. Syed Owais Ahmed, the learned counsel for the accused would submit that the judgment of acquittal has taken a possible view and there is no compelling reason demonstrated for warranting interference by this Court. Shri. Syed Owais Ahmed, the learned counsel for the accused ::: Uploaded on - 07/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 09/11/2017 01:44:46 ::: apeal411of02.odt 4 invites my attention to the charge Exh. 72. The submission is that there is absolutely nothing in the charge to put the accused on notice as to the case which the accused has to meet. The vagueness of the charge is fatal, is the submission. 5 In view of the submission that the charge is vague, I have given my anxious consideration to the charge. The charge beyond making a reference to the various statutory provisions, does not put the accused on notice as to what is the case of the complainant and against which allegations the accused is required to defend himself. The learned counsel for the accused is more than justified in contending that the vagueness of the charge is fatal to the prosecution.
6 The vagueness of the charge apart, having examined the evidence on record holistically, I do not find any compelling reason to interfere with the judgment of acquittal. The judgment is not perverse and has taken a possible view.
7 The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, has recorded a finding of fact that no opportunity was given to the accused to exercise the statutory right of having the sample analyzed at the ::: Uploaded on - 07/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 09/11/2017 01:44:46 ::: apeal411of02.odt 5 Central Food Laboratory. This finding is not shown to be perverse. The report of the public analyst does state that the sample does not confirm to the standards as per the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 since the month and the year on which the sample was manufactured is not stated on the label resulting in contravention of Rules 32(f) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has held that since the report of the public analyst does not state that the sample of biscuit packets are found injuries to health, the sample can not be said to be adulterated. I am not inclined to make any observation on the correctness or otherwise of the said finding recorded by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. I am satisfied, that since the charge is absolutely vague and nothing is disclosed in the charge other than the statutory provisions, the judgment of acquittal needs no interference. 8 The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has also faulted the complainant for not having traced the original manufacturer of the biscuits seized from the accused. I do not express any opinion on the said finding. Suffice, it to say that I do not see any compelling reason to interfere with the judgment of acquittal. Concededly, the sample is not held to be injuries to health. The ::: Uploaded on - 07/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 09/11/2017 01:44:46 ::: apeal411of02.odt 6 case of the complainant is that the sample does not make any reference to the date of manufacture but then since the complainant is admittedly not the manufacturer or the wholesale dealer and has purchased the biscuit packets from a dealer, whose role is not investigated. In the absence of any particulars or details in the charge, I do not consider it appropriate to deal with the contention of the complainant that the absence of the said details in the label would render the accused liable for infringement of the statutory provisions.
On a holistic view, I am satisfied that the appeal is without merit and I dismiss the same.
JUDGE RS Belkhede ::: Uploaded on - 07/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 09/11/2017 01:44:46 :::