Bombay High Court
The State Of Mah And Anr vs Nagindas Jivanlal Mehta And Ors on 23 September, 2016
Bench: V.K. Jadhav
1 CRI WP 43.2007.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 43 OF 2007
1. The State of Maharashtra,
at the instance of Food Inspector,
Tulsidas Chandidas Rao Boralkar,
Food and Drug Administration,
Jalna, Maharashtra State.
2. Tulsidas Chandidas Rao Boralkar,
Food Inspector, Food and Drug
Administration, Jalna, Maharashtra,
State (Now working at Latur).
ig ..Petitioners...
(Petitioner no.1 orig resp. no.1
and petitioner -orig respondent
no.2 in Cri Rev Pet No.65/2002)
VERSUS
1. Nagindas Jivanlal Mehta,
Nominee M/s Narottamdas and
Co., Shamal Road, P.B. No.43,
Khamgaon 444 303.
2. Narottamdas and Co.,
Shamal Road,
P.B. 43, Khamgaon 444 303.
3. Sriram Nandlal Bhutada,
Proprietor, M/s Radhakisan
Sriram Bhutada, General
Merchand, Partur.
4. Shri Harischandra Roopchandra Vadera,
Distributor, Vijay Trading Co.,
Shivaji Road, Parbhani.
..Respondents..
(Resp no.1 and 2 orig applicant No.1
and 2 and Resp No.3 and 4 Ori resp
no.3 and 4 in Cri Revn No.65/2002.)
::: Uploaded on - 27/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2016 00:25:31 :::
2 CRI WP 43.2007.odt
...
APP for Petitioners : Mr P G Borade
Advocate for Respondents : Mr R N Chavan h/f Vijay
Sharma For R-1,2, Mr A S Usmanpurkar For R-3,4
...
CORAM : V.K. JADHAV, J.
Dated: September 23, 2016
...
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
1. The learned APP has submitted affidavit of the
petitioner on record and the same is taken on record.
Copy is already served on the other side.
2. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the
Additional Sessions Judge, Jalna dated 4.8.2006 in
Criminal Revision Petition No.65/2002, the State has
preferred present Criminal Writ Petition.
3. Brief facts, giving rise to the present writ petition
are as follows :-
On 17.2.1998 Food Inspector Shri Boralkar had
obtained sample of Sodium bicarbonate from original
accused 1 and 2. On 17.2.1998 Food Inspector visited
the establishment of accused no.1 and accordingly
purchased 900 grams of sodium bicarbonate from the
3 CRI WP 43.2007.odt
shop by disclosing his identity and also obtained the
receipt for payment of the amount of the above goods.
Thereafter, said sample was sent for analysis by
following due process. It reveals from the report of the
analysis that, sample of the sodium bicarbonate is
admixture sodium bicarbonate and sodium carbonate.
In due course complainant had obtained consent for
filing the complaint and accordingly, filed complaint
before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Partur.
Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Partur issued
process against all accused for the charges levelled
against them in the complaint. Respondents no.3 and 4
original accused 3 and 4 had filed an application Exh.10
for discharge before the Magistrate and remaining
accused persons also filed separate application before
the Magistrate for discharge. The Magistrate had
rejected the applications of all accused by two separate
orders. Being aggrieved by the same, present
respondent nos.3 and 4 and remaining accused persons
approached the Sessions Court, Jalna. The learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Jalna allowed revision
petitions and accordingly discharged the respondent
4 CRI WP 43.2007.odt
nos. 3 and 4 original accused 3 and 4 from the charges
levelled against them in RCC no.8/2000. Aggrieved by
the same, State has preferred present writ petition.
4. During the course of the argument, the point was
raised whether any standard is fixed for sodium
bicarbonate under the provisions of Prevention of Food
Adulteration Act, 1954. The learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Jalna in paragraph no.12 of the Judgment has
observed that, the learned APP before him unable to
show the court any provision under which any standard
has been fixed for the sodium bicarbonate i.e. article
allegedly purchased by the complainant Food Inspector
from the accused persons. In the light of the above
observations, this Court has directed the petitioner
State to find out the relevant provision under the Food
Adulteration Act and submit the affidavit of Food
Inspector to that effect.
5. Accordingly, one Shri Ramchandra Marotrao
Bharkad, Food Safety Officer (Previously working as
Food Inspector under the provisions of Prevention of
5 CRI WP 43.2007.odt
Food Adulteration Act, 1954) working in the office of
Assistant Commissioner (Food and Drug Administration)
Maharashtra State, Jalna submitted his affidavit and in
paragraph nos. 2 and 3 of the affidavit it is stated which
is reproduced herein below :-
"2. I say and submit that, during hearing of
this criminal petition the point was raised
about Standards for Sodium Bicarbonate
under Prevention of Food Adulteration Act,
1954. I have gone through the Act and
found that no standards are given for
Sodium Bicarbonate under Prevention of
Food Adulteration Act.
3. I say and submit that, the Sodium
Bicarbonate finds it reference under the
category of Food Additives and also in the
standards of food article Namely Khandsari
Sugar, Infant Milk Food, Infant Formula,
Follow-up Formula-Complementary Food
Where it is mentioned that Sodium
Bicarbonate (Food Grade) but what is
meant by food grade is not mentioned in the
Act. Copy of the relevant portion of the
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 is
annexed."
6 CRI WP 43.2007.odt
6. In view of the above legal position and since no
standard has been fixed for sodium bicarbonate, the
continuation of the proceeding before the Magistrate in
RCC No.8/2000 as rightly held by the Additional
Sessions Judge Jalna to be abuse of process of the
Court.
7. In view of the above, I do not find any substance in
the writ petition. Hence, order.
O R D E R
I. Criminal Writ Petition is hereby dismissed.
II. Rule discharged.
sd/-
( V.K. JADHAV, J. )
...
aaa/-
