Bombay High Court
State Of Maha vs Ashok Dalumal Hemanani on 14 August, 2017
Bench: Sangitrao S. Patil
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 280 OF 2003
The State of Maharashtra,
at the instance of S.V. Khairnar,
Food Inspector, Food & Drugs
Administration, Jalgaon APPELLANT
VERSUS
Ashok Dalumal Hemnani,
Prop. Of Shop No. 21,
Central Fule Market, RESPONDENT
Jalgaon (ORIG. ACCUSED)
----
Smt. R.P. Gaur, A.P.P. For the appellant/State
Mr. D.S. Bharuka, Advocate for the respondent
----
CORAM : SANGITRAO S. PATIL, J.
JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : 4th AUGUST, 2017
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON :14th AUGUST, 2017
JUDGMENT :
Heard the learned A.P.P. for the
appellant/State and the learned counsel for the
respondent.
2. By this appeal, the State of Maharashtra/
appellant has taken exception to the acquittal of the
respondent of the offence under Section 7 (i) read
2 criapl280-2003
with Section 2 (ia) (a) and Section 2 (ia) (m),
punishable under Section 16 of the Prevention of Food
Adulteration Act, 1954 ("Act", for short), recorded by
the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalgaon in
Regular Criminal Case No. 461 of 2000 on 31st December,
2002.
3. The Food Inspector namely Mahesh Namdeorao
Chaudhari visited the shop of the respondent on 1 st
November, 1999 and after introducing himself with the
respondent, purchased 450 grams of groundnut oil each
from three different barrels, which was meant for sale
through the shop of the respondent. The said groundnut
oil was taken by the Food Inspector in clean and dry
utensils. He then divided that groundnut oil in three
equal parts each and filled it in three dry and clean
glass bottles each as samples. He packed and sealed
those samples with the signatures of the respondent and
panch witness. He affixed necessary slips to the sample
bottles. He then prepared panchanama of the fact of
taking samples of groundnut oil. He then sent one of
the bottles from those three sets of samples to the
Public Analyst, District Public Health Laboratory,
Worli, New Mumbai as per the Rules. The Public Analyst
3 criapl280-2003
analyzed the said samples and found that they were not
conforming to the standard of groundnut oil as per the
provisions of the Act. The papers in respect of taking
of samples and all other documents were sent to the
Joint Commissioner, Food and Drugs, through the Local
Health Authority, Jalgaon for obtaining consent to
prosecute the respondent. In the meantime, the Food
Inspector Mahesh Chaudhari got transferred. He was
succeeded by the Food Inspector namely Satish Vishwanath
Khairnar. He received the consent orders for
prosecuting the respondent given by the Joint
Commissioner, Nasik through the Local Health Authority.
Therefore, the Food Inspector Satish Khairnar filed
three different complaints against the respondent for
the above mentioned offence in respect of three samples
taken by the Food Inspector Mahesh Chaudhari from three
different barrels of groundnut oil from the respondent.
The Food Inspector Satish Khairnar intimated that fact
to the Local Health Authority for taking action under
section 13 (2) of the Act.
4. On the basis of the complaints lodged by the
Food Inspector Satish Khairnar, three different criminal
cases were registered against the respondent. This
4 criapl280-2003
appeal is arising out of Regular Criminal Case No. 460
of 2000.
5. The appellant examined the Food Inspectors
namely Mahesh Chaudhari and Satish Khairnar, the panch
witness namely Brijlal Meghawani and the Local Health
Authority Shashikant Patil to establish guilt of the
respondent for the above mentioned offence.
6. The Trial Court considered the evidence on
record and came to hold that the appellant failed to
establish guilt of the respondent for the above
mentioned offence. The Trial Court, therefore, acquitted
the respondent of the said offence.
7. The learned A.P.P., appearing for the
appellant/State, submits that there is sufficient,
cogent and clinching evidence on record to establish
guilt of the respondent for the above mentioned offence.
All the formalities as prescribed under the provisions
of the Act and the Prevention of Food Adulteration
Rules, 1955 ("Rules", for short) have been strictly
followed by the Food Inspectors. The Trial Court
acquitted the respondent on the flimsy ground that the
presence of one peon was not stated by the Food
5 criapl280-2003
Inspector Mahesh Chaudhari and that the utensils in
which 450 grams of groundnut oil was taken from the
barrels as also the sample bottles were not cleaned and
dried on the spot.
8. The learned A.P.P. submits that when there is
specific evidence of the Food Inspector Mahesh Chaudhari
about having taken groundnut oil in the dry and clean
utensils as well as taking the samples in dry and clean
bottles, which fact also has been confirmed in the
reports of analysis of Public Analyst, it was not
necessary that the said utensils and sample bottles
should have actually been dried and cleaned on the spot
itself. The learned A.P.P. further submits that the
presence or absence of the peon at the time of taking
samples is totally an insignificant fact. The learned
A.P.P. then submits that on the request of the
respondent, the second sample was sent to the Central
Food Laboratory (CFL), Calcutta, wherein also it was
noticed that the sample of groundnut oil was
adulterated. According to the learned A.P.P., the Trial
Court committed a grave mistake in acquitting the
respondent.
6 criapl280-2003
9. The learned A.P.P. pointed out to the judgment
delivered by this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 278 of
2003, whereby this Court set aside the judgment of
acquittal dated 31st December, 2002 passed by the learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalgaon in Regular Criminal
Case No. 462 of 2000, which was instituted for the above
mentioned offence only on the basis of one of the
samples taken from one of the three groundnut oil
barrels from the respondent under the same panchanama by
the Food Inspector Mahesh Chaudhary on 1st November, 1999
itself. The learned A.P.P. submits that the same
formalities which were observed by the Food Inspector
Mahesh Chaudhary for taking samples of groundnut oil
from the respondent in Regular Criminal Case No.
462/2000, were observed by him in respect of the present
case also. This Court has set aside the judgment of
acquittal passed by the Trial Court, held the respondent
guilty of the above mentioned offence and convicted him
to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of six
months and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to
suffer rigorous imprisonment for fifteen days.
10. The learned A.P.P. submits that it is not the
case of the respondent that he has challenged the said
7 criapl280-2003
judgment of conviction and sentence. As such, it has got
finality. The learned A.P.P., therefore, submits that in
view of the judgment passed by this Court in Criminal
Appeal No. 278 of 2003, the present appeal also is
liable to be allowed and the respondent is liable to be
convicted for the above mentioned offence, otherwise an
anomalous situation would be created.
11. As against this, the learned counsel for the
respondent submits that certain valid and legal points
indicating breach of mandatory provisions of the Act and
Rules by the Food Inspectors have not been brought to
the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the
respondent when Criminal Appeal No. 278 of 2003 was
heard by this Court. He, therefore, submits that the
judgment dated 11th January, 2016 passed by this Court in
Criminal Appeal No. 278 of 2003 cannot be made
applicable to the facts of the present case. He submits
that the Food Inspector committed breach of Rule 14 of
the Rules by not cleaning and drying on the spot the
utensils and sample bottles in which the groundnut oil
was taken from the barrels in the presence of the
respondent. According to him, as held in the cases of
The State of Maharashtra Vs. Gitaram Kaluram 1993 (2)
8 criapl280-2003
FAC 238, State of Maharashtra Vs. Bhaskar Rajeshwar
Gangshettiwar and others 2004 (1) FAC 13 and The State
of Maharashtra Vs. Shri Chandrakant Sopan Kadam and
another 2016 ALL MR (Cri) 2986, the breach of Rule 14
would entitle the respondent to get acquittal.
12. He then submits that before taking out the
groundnut oil, it was not stirred. Therefore, in view
of the judgment in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs.
Vinayak Mahadeorao Waze and another 2005 (2) FAC 126,
the respondent was entitled to get acquittal.
13. He then submits that the Food Inspector
Chaudhari did not follow Rules 17 and 18. He did not
despatch the samples in the manner provided in Rule 17
and did not send the memorandum and specimen impression
of the seal used to seal the packets in a sealed packet
separately to the Public Analyst. There is no postal
acknowledgement receipt given by the Public Analyst
about receipt of the memorandum and specimen impression
of the seal. Relying on the judgment in the case of
State of Maharashtra Vs. Rajkaran 1988 EFR 550, he
submits that unless postal receipt is produced, it
cannot be accepted that the memorandum and specimen of
9 criapl280-2003
the seal were sent separately by post.
14. According to him, after receiving the report
of Central Food Laboratory in respect of second sample,
it was necessary to obtain fresh consent for prosecution
of the respondent. However, no such fresh consent was
obtained. Therefore, in view of the judgment in the case
of The State of Maharashtra Vs. Ashpak Ahmed Fakik Ahmed
and another 2014 ALL MR (Cri) 3589 and N. Sukumaran Nair
Vs. Food inspector, Mavelikara (1997)9 SCC 101, the
respondent is liable to be acquitted.
15. The learned counsel for the respondent submits
that the list of the documents sent to the Consenting
Authority has not been produced before the Court.
Therefore, in view of the judgment in the case of Shri
Chandrakant Sopan Kadam and another (supra), the consent
accorded for prosecuting the respondent cannot be said
to be free from doubts. The learned counsel submits that
the Food Inspector being an interested person in seeing
the respondent convicted, independent corroboration was
necessary to his evidence. The evidence of the panch
witness is very vague and general. It does not
corroborate the evidence of the Food Inspector on all
10 criapl280-2003
material points. Therefore, on the basis of the evidence
on record, the respondent was not liable to be
convicted. The learned counsel for the respondent,
therefore, prays that the appeal may be dismissed.
Compliance of Rule 14 of the Rules :
16. The Food Inspector Mahesh Chaudhari deposes at
Exh-17 that on 1st November, 1999, he visited shop of the
respondent along with another Food Inspector having
surname Ugale and panch witness Brijlal Meghawani. He
requested the respondent to sell 450 grams of groundnut
oil from each of the three barrels. The respondent
cleaned the upper lids of the barrels. Then he
(Chaudhari) provided three clean and dry utensils to the
respondent. He had shown the panch and the respondent
the clean and dry utensils. Thereafter, the respondent
sold 450 grams of groundnut oil from each of the barrels
in three utensils. He then separated the said groundnut
oil in three equal quantity and filled it in three
different glass bottles each after showing the sample
bottles and the corks to the respondent to make him
satisfied that the same were clean and dry. All these
procedural aspects have been noted by him in the
panchanama (Exh-23). It has been signed by the
11 criapl280-2003
respondent. The copy of that panchanama also was given
to him. Brijlal (PW3) - panch witness does not
specifically state about the fact of cleaning and drying
the utensils as well as sample bottles on the spot.
However, panchanama (Exh-23), which was prepared on the
spot in the presence of the respondent, depicts the
factual position about satisfaction of the respondent in
respect of dryness and cleanness of the utensils as well
as sample bottles used for taking samples. The
respondent has not ever made any grievance against the
contents of panchanama (Exh-23). The contents of this
panchanama fully corroborate the evidence of the Food
Inspector Chaudhari.
17. In the case of Gitaram Kaluram (supra), cited
by the learned counsel for the respondent, the panch
witness merely deposed that sample bottles were washed
by water but did not state that the bottles were dried
and only thereafter the coconut oil was poured therein.
Therefore, the acquittal of the accused therein was
upheld. In the case of Bhaskar Rajeshwar Gangshettiwar
and others (supra), the Food Inspector had clearly
stated that he had taken samples by weighing measure
(container), which was lying in the shop of the accused
12 criapl280-2003
and he did not clean it before obtaining the sample in
that container. In the case of Shri Chandrakant Sopan
Kadam and another (supra), no evidence was adduced by
the complainant as regards the necessary precaution
taken by him to ensure that the bottles in which samples
were collected were clean and dry. In the
circumstances, the accused was acquitted.
18. In the present case, there is positive and
clinching evidence of the Food Inspector Chaudhari that
after getting it confirmed from the respondent that the
utensils, in which the groundnut oil was purchased as
well as the sample bottles, in which it was poured, were
dry and clean. In view of this distinguishing fact, the
above mentioned rulings would not be applicable to the
facts of the present case.
19. The learned A.P.P. relied on the judgment in
the case of Kantilal s/o Parasmal Jain Vs. The State of
Maharashtra 2014 SCC OnLine Bom 502. In that case, the
evidence of the complainant showed that he purchased the
groundnut oil in a clean, dry and empty stainless steel
pot. He divided the samples into three equal parts and
thereafter, it was kept in three clean, dry and empty
glass bottles. The panchanama proved on record also
13 criapl280-2003
mentioned that the complainant bought the groundnut oil
after it was weighed, in clean, dry and empty stainless
steel pot and then the same was divided into three parts
and filled in clean, dry and empty glass bottles. The
evidence of the complainant had remained unshattered in
his cross-examination. In the circumstances, the
evidence of the complainant was accepted. In the present
case also, there is nothing in the cross-examination of
the Food Inspector Chaudhari to indicate that the
utensils or the sample bottles in which the groundnut
oil was taken and filled, were not dry and clean.
Moreover, the respondent has not made any grievance
about the contents of this panchanama (Exh-23), wherein
it was specifically mentioned that the said utensils as
well as the sample bottles were dry and clean. In my
view, the evidence of the Food Inspector Chaudhari
clearly shows that he has duly complied with the
provisions of Rule 14 of the Rules in the matter of
taking samples of the groundnut oil purchased from the
respondent.
Stirring of Oil :
20. Relying on the judgment in the case of Vinayak
Mahadeorao Waze and another (supra), the learned counsel
14 criapl280-2003
for the respondent submits that there is no evidence on
record to show that the Food Inspector Chaudhari stirred
the groundnut oil before taking its sample. In paragraph
No. 7 of the said judgment, there is simply a mention of
the fact that the Food Inspector admitted that the oil
was not stirred before collection of the sample.
However, there is no discussion or observation with
reference to any provisions of the Act or the Rules
making stirring of groundnut oil mandatory before taking
its sample. There were a number of deficiencies in that
case which led to the acquittal of the accused. The
said acquittal was not on the ground that the groundnut
oil was not stirred before taking its sample. On the
contrary, in the case of Kantilal s/o Parasmal Jain
(supra), cited by the learned A.P.P., it is specifically
observed that what is required for taking sample of milk
(i.e. stirring) is not the requirement for taking sample
of oil because fat in the milk settles on the top, while
in the case of groundnut oil, it is not so. In the
circumstances, the contention of the learned counsel for
the respondent that for want of stirring of the
groundnut oil, the sample thereof cannot be said to have
been properly taken, cannot be accepted.
15 criapl280-2003
Compliance of Rules 17 and 18:
21. Rule 17 of the Rules contains the manner of
despatching containers of samples, while Rule 18
contains the procedure for sending of the memorandum and
specimen impression of the seal used to seal the packet
to the Public Analyst by any suitable means.
22. The Food Inspector Chaudhari deposes that on 2 nd
November, 1999, he prepared specimen impression in four
copies. He prepared Form No. VII. He forwarded one of
the parts of the samples with original Form VII in one
sealed packet to Public Analyst, New Bombay. He put one
impression of seal and one copy of memorandum in a
sealed packet and sent these two packets with his
Assistant to the Public Analyst, New Bombay. The copy
of the memorandum is Exh-24, while that of the specimen
seal is Exh-25. He states that rest of two specimen
seals were sent to the Local Health Authority in
separate sealed packets with covering letter (Exh-26).
The rest of the two parts of samples along with two
copies of Form No. VII were sent in a sealed packet to
16 criapl280-2003
the Local Health Authority, Jalgaon with covering letter
(Exh-27). He informed the Local health Authority that
one of the samples had been sent for analysis to the
Public Analyst. He then deposes that he received
acknowledgement (Exh-28) from the Local health
Authority. He further received acknowledgement (Exh-29)
from the Public Analyst about receipt of specimen seal
and Form No. VII. This evidence of the Food Inspector
Chaudhari has gone totally unchallenged in his cross-
examination. I do not find any reason to disbelieve it.
From this evidence, it is clear that he fully complied
with the provisions of Rules 17 and 18. In the
circumstances, the judgments in the cases of Rajkaran
(supra) and Shri Chandrakant Sopan Kadam and another
(supra) would be of no help to the respondent to express
doubt on the procedure followed by the Food Inspector
Chaudhari.
Reports of the analysis of samples :
23. The report of the Public Analyst in respect of
the sample sent by the Food Inspector Chaudhari reads as
under:-
17 criapl280-2003
12/1/2000
Exh-30
Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Jalgaon
FORM III
[See rule 7 (3)]
REPORT BY THE PUBLIC ANALYST
Appearances : The sample of oil
is clear free from
suspended matter
etc. separated
water.
Test for Rancidity : Negative
Test for colour : No extraneous
colour detected
Test for Mineral oil : Negative
Butyrorefractometer reading : 40.C - 60.0
Test for Caster seed oil : Negative
Supermification Value : 189.49
Iodine value : 112.65
Unsaponifiable matter : 0.58%
Acid value : 0.31
Bellier Test : Turbidity
Temperature acetic
acid method :
27.00C
Opinion : The above sample
does not conform to
the standards of
Groundnut oil as
per Prevention of
Food Adulteration
Act, 1954.
18 criapl280-2003
Signed this 12th day of January, 1999
To,
The Local (health) Authority,
Assistant Commissioner,
Food & Drugs Adm.9M.S.),
Jalgaon Sd/-
Public Analyst"
24. On the application of the respondent, the
second sample was sent to Central Food Laboratory,
Calcutta for analysis and report. The said report reads
as under:-
"FORM-II
(Certificate of test or analysis by the Central
Food Laboratory, Calcutta)
Certificate No.G.14-3/2001 (P.T.1)-127
Physical Examination :
Moisture :
Butyrorefractometer reading : 60.0
at 40°
Saponification value : 201.7
Iodine value : 120.7
Acid value : 0.43
Bellier test (Turbidity : 29.6°C
Temperature acid method)
Baudouin test (for seasame : Negative
oil)
19 criapl280-2003
Polybromide :
Test for mineral oil : Negative
Test for Cottonseed oil : Negative
Test for Argemone oil by : Negative
T.L.C.
Test for Hydrocyanic acid :
Test for Castor oil by T.L.C. : Negative
Phosphorus :
Test for Tri-Ortho-Cresyl :
Phosphate
Cloud Point :
Flash point (Pensky-Marten :
closed method)
Added colouring matter : Absent
Aflatoxin B1 (Microgram/Kg) : 5.0
Opinion : The sample
of Groundnut
Oil is
adulterated.
Place : KOLKATA
Date : 18.4.01 Sd/
(Dr. J. Chakrabati)
Director
Central Food Laboratory,
Calcutta"
25. From the above mentioned reports, it is clear
that the groundnut oil, which was kept for sale and sold
to the Food Inspector by the respondent was adulterated
article of food as defined in Section 2 (ia) and (m) of
the Act.
20 criapl280-2003
Consent for prosecution :
26. The learned counsel for the respondent, relying
on the judgment in the case of Ashpak Ahmed Fakik ahmed
and another (supra), submits that consent for
prosecution of the respondent ought to have been
obtained afresh after receiving the report of the
Central Food Laboratory in respect of the second sample.
In that case, the report of the Public Analyst revealed
that there was presence of coal tar food colour in food
sample i.e. "Radha-Rani Chatani" and thereby it
contravened Rule 28. However, the Central Food
Laboratory found that the said food sample contravened
Rule 33 (e). Thus, there was variance in the opinion of
the Public Analyst and Central Food Laboratory in
respect of contravention of the Rules. The consent
for prosecution of the accused therein was obtained on
the basis of the findings of the Public Analyst, which
was not confirmed by the Central Food Laboratory.
Therefore, it was held that after receiving the report
of the Central Food Laboratory, fresh consent of the
Competent Authority was required to be obtained prior to
prosecuting the accused therein. In the present case,
no such variance has been reported in the opinions of
21 criapl280-2003
the Public Analyst and Central Food Laboratory.
Consequently, it was not necessary to obtain fresh
consent for prosecution of the respondent from the
Competent Authority.
27. The Food Inspector Chaudhari states that on 16 th
February, 2000, he forwarded the proposal for obtaining
the consent to prosecute the accused/respondent along
with all documents to the Joint Commissioner, Food and
Drugs through the Local health Authority vide letter
(Exh-36). The letter (Exh-36) contains that the original
documents bearing page Nos.1 to 19 with their
photocopies were sent by the Food Inspector Chaudhari to
the Local Health Authority for obtaining consent for
prosecuting the respondent. This evidence cannot be
brushed aside merely on the ground that the list of the
documents sent to the Consenting Authority was not filed
before the Trial Court. The consent order dated 11th
October, 2000 is at Exh-50. The Consenting Authority has
specifically mentioned in the said order that after
going through the case papers, he found that there was
prima facie case and it was necessary in the public
interest that the prosecution should be instituted
22 criapl280-2003
against the respondent for the above mentioned offence.
With these specific observations of the Consenting
Authority and the evidence of the Food Inspector
Chaudhary, I do not find any flaw in the consent order.
It was not at all necessary to examine the Consenting
Authority to prove the contents of the consent order.
28. The technical flaws attempted to be shown by
the learned counsel for the respondent in the procedure
followed by the Food Inspector Chaudhari in prosecuting
the respondent, in view of the above discussion, cannot
be said to have any substance. The observations of the
Trial Court that the Food Inspector did not follow the
provisions of Rule 14 are not well founded. When the
respondent himself received the copy of the panchanama
under his signature and when he did not make any
grievance about the contents of the panchanama, either
before the Food Inspector Chaudhari or his superior
officers, the presence or absence of any peon or other
person at the time of taking sample of groundnut oil
would have no adverse effect on the case of the
appellant. The Trial Court has wrongly appreciated the
facts and the evidence on record and has wrongly
acquitted the respondent.
23 criapl280-2003
29. The learned A.P.P. cited the judgment in the
case of Om Prakash Vs. Delhi Administration and another
(1976)1 SCC 637, wherein six samples of milk were taken
from six different cans. All the samples were found
deficient in respect of non-fat solids and as such,
adulterated. It was held that each sample would be a
separate transaction of sale and each such transaction
of sale would constitute a separate offence, if samples
were found to be adulterated. In the present case, the
respondent sold three samples of groundnut oil from
three different barrels. Therefore, each sample would
be a separate transaction of sale and would constitute a
separate offence since each of the samples is found to
be adulterated. In the circumstances, even if the
respondent is convicted by this Court in Criminal Appeal
No. 278 of 2003, in respect of one of the three samples
taken by the Food Inspector Chaudhari from the
respondent on 1st November, 1999, the respondent would be
liable to be prosecuted, tried and convicted for the
sample subject matter of the present case also since it
is found adulterated.
30. As stated above, the respondent has been
24 criapl280-2003
convicted for the above mentioned offence in respect of
one of the samples of groundnut oil and has been
sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period
of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default
to suffer rigorous imprisonment for fifteen days. Since
the respondent is found guilty for the same offence in
this case also, arising out of same incident of taking
samples under the same set of circumstances, I am of the
view that the respondent should be convicted for the
offence subject matter of this case with the same
sentence that has been passed in Criminal Appeal No. 278
of 2003.
31. It is reported that the respondent is
undergoing the sentence of imprisonment. The offence
has been committed on 1st November, 1999. The period of
about eighteen years has been elapsed therefrom. The
respondent is already undergoing the sentence of
imprisonment in respect of one of the similar offences.
In the circumstances, in view of the provisions of
Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, I think
fit to direct that the substantive sentence of
imprisonment awarded in this case shall run concurrently
from today with the substantive sentence of
25 criapl280-2003
imprisonment, which is being suffered by the respondent
in respect of his conviction in Regular Criminal Case
No. 462 of 2000. The appeal bearing No.279 of 2003
filed by the present appellant against his conviction
and sentence for the same offence, which is the subject
matter of this appeal, has been allowed by this Court
today. It was a case pertaining to one of the samples
of groundnut oil taken by the Food Inspector Chaudhari
alongwith the sample of groundnut oil subject matter of
the present appeal. Considering the above-mentioned
facts, I think fit to direct that the substantive
sentences passed by the Trial Court, which have been
confirmed by this Court in both of these appeals, shall
run concurrently vide Section 427 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure. In the result, I pass the following
order:-
O R D E R
(i) The Criminal Appeal is allowed.
(ii) The impugned judgment and order dated 31 st
December, 2002, passed by the Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Jalgaon in Regular Criminal Case
No. 460 of 2000 are quashed and set aside.
26 criapl280-2003
(iii) The respondent is convicted of the offence
under Section 7 (i) read with Section 2 (ia)
(a) and (m), punishable under Section 16 of the
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and
is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment
for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-,
in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for
fifteen days.
(iv) The substantive sentence of imprisonment passed
against the respondent by this order shall run
concurrently from today vide Section 427 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure with the substantive
sentence of imprisonment that is being suffered
by the respondent pursuant to the order dated
11th January, 2016, passed by this Court in
Criminal Appeal No. 278 of 2003 (The State of
Maharashtra Vs. Ashok Daluman Hemnani) in
of 2000.
(v) The substantive sentences of imprisonment
passed against the appellant by the Trial Court
in Regular Criminal Case No. 461 of 2000 and
27 criapl280-2003
confirmed by this Court in Criminal Appeal
No.279 of 2003 and in Regular Criminal Case No.
460 of 2000 and confirmed by this Court in the
present appeal, shall run concurrently.
(vi) The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
[SANGITRAO S. PATIL]
JUDGE
npj/criapl280-2003
