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
