Bombay High Court
The State Of Maharashtra vs Fulchand Shivlal Daga & Anr on 18 July, 2017
Bench: N.M. Jamdar
1 902. Cr.Apeal 917.02.doc
JPP
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELL ATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 917 OF 2002
State at the instance of
Mr. S.N. Dangal, Food Inspector,
Food and Drug Administration,
Maharashtra State, Central
Administrative Building,
Solapur. ... Appellant
(Orig. Complainant)
V/s.
1. Mr. Fulchand Shivlal Daga, Vendor.
2. Mr. Satyanarayan Fulchand Daga,
Proprietor of M/s. Shivlal Traders,
Situated at 438, East Mangalwar Peth,
Solapur. ... Respondents.
(Orig. Accused Nos.1 & 2)
Mr. P.H. Gaikwad-Patil, Asstt. Public Prosecutor for the State.
None for the Respondents.
CORAM : N.M. JAMDAR, J.
DATE : JULY 18, 2017.
Oral Judgment :-
By this Appeal, the State of Maharashtra has challenged
the Judgment and Order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First
Class, Solapur dated 10 October 2001, acquitting the Respondents of
2 902. Cr.Apeal 917.02.doc
the offence punishable under Section 16 of the Prevention of Food
Adulteration Act, 1954.
2. The Respondents - Accused No.1 is the Vendor of M/s.
Shivlal Traders and Accused No.2 is the Proprietor. The
Respondents - Accused dealt with selling of various food articles.
According to the prosecution, on 13 September 1994, the Food
Inspector R.C. Runwal with others visited the establishment of the
Respondents. The Food Inspector Runwal disclosed his identity and
took samples of the food articles. It was also found that 20 kg. of
black pepper was stored in the shop in a loose pack. According to
the prosecution, thereafter the requisite procedure, as prescribed
under the Act of 1954 and the Rules framed thereunder, was
followed and samples were sent for analysis. After receipt of the
report from the Public Analyst and after obtaining sanction, a
complaint was filed. A charge was framed against the Respondents
under Section 16 of the Act of 1954 and the case was tried by the
learned Magistrate, Solapur. The Respondents apart from taking up
a defence that there was no adulteration and that the procedure was
not followed, challenged the jurisdiction of the Food Inspector
Runwal to draw the samples. The learned Magistrate held that the
Food Inspector Runwal acted beyond his local jurisdiction and
found that the mandatory procedure under Section 13(2) of the Act
of 1954, was not followed. The learned Magistrate also held that
3 902. Cr.Apeal 917.02.doc
Accused No.1 did not have any concern with Shivlal Traders.
Accordingly, the learned Magistrate passed the impugned Judgment
and Order.
3. I have heard Mr. Gaikwad-Patil, APP for the State.
None appears for the Respondents. It was contended on behalf of
the State that the impugned judgment and order is incorrect in law
and also on facts and ought to be reversed
4. The first point that needs to be considered is the
authority and jurisdiction of the Food Inspector. As held by the
Apex Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi V/s.
Laxmi Narain Tandon, etc.1, the Food Inspector, in the scheme of
the Act of 1954, plays a pivotal role. It is therefore of importance
that the Food Inspector has jurisdiction and authority and must also
follow the mandatory procedure laid down under the Act of 1954
and Rules. For each local area, a Food Inspector has been appointed
under the Act and these Food Inspectors are charged with
responsibility to ensure that there is no infraction of the provisions of
the Act of 1954 and the Rules. Each Food Inspector has a prescribed
territorial jurisdiction within which they are authorized to take
samples and send the same to the Public Analyst. Section 9 of the
Act of 1954 states that the Central Government or the State
Government by a notification may appoint a Food Inspector, having
1 AIR 1976 SC 621
4 902. Cr.Apeal 917.02.doc
the prescribed qualifications, for such local areas as may be assigned
to them by the Central Government or the State Government.
Section 2(vii) deals with the definition of the 'local area', which
means an area, whether urban or rural, declared by a notification in
the Official Gazette, to be a 'local area' for the purpose of the Act.
Section 10 of the Act of 1954 deals with the powers of the Food
Inspectors to take samples of food articles and send the same to the
Public Analyst and thereafter, to follow the procedure indicated. The
Food Inspector are authorized to exercise the powers of a Police
Officer under Section 42 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Section 11 of the Act of 1954 deals with the procedure to be
followed by the Food Inspectors while taking the food sample.
5. In the present case it has come on record that the
Complainant - R.C. Runwal was appointed as a Food Inspector for
Chandrapur area vide order dated 7 July 1989. Thereafter, on 8 June
1993 he was transferred from Chandrapur to Pune as a Food
Inspector and since June 1993 he was working at Pune as a Food
Inspector. On 13 September 1994, he visited the establishment of
the Respondents at Solapur to draw the samples. Nothing has been
placed on record by the prosecution that the appointment of the
Food Inspector Runwal at Pune was also for Solapur city. In view
of the categorical defence raised by the Respondents that the
Complainant Runwal was appointed as a Food Inspector only for the
5 902. Cr.Apeal 917.02.doc
Pune area, it was incumbent on the prosecution to demonstrate that
he was so authorized for Solapur area as well. No such evidence was
placed on record. It appears to be an admitted position that the
appointment of Complainant - Runwal as a Food Inspector was only
for Pune area, in view of the case of the prosecution itself where it
was sought to be justified that the other officers from Solapur area
accompanied the Complainant - Runwal.
6. Once the Act has prescribed the territorial jurisdiction of
the Food Inspector by prescribing a local area, it goes without saying
that he will have no jurisdiction beyond the territorial limits of the
said local area. No position of law is shown that a Food Inspector
appointed for one local area can simply walk into any establishment
anywhere in the country, draw samples and launch prosecutions.
The learned Magistrate has rightly found that the complaint filed by
such Food Inspector, who had no jurisdiction whatsoever, could not
be proceeded with. Nothing is shown as to how this view can be
termed as a perverse view. The learned Magistrate has also found
that Accused No.1 was not connected with the establishment as the
Shop Act Licence was only in the name of Accused No.2. The
learned Magistrate has also found that the procedure under Section
13(2) and Rule 9(A) of the Act of 1954 was also not followed .
6 902. Cr.Apeal 917.02.doc
7. The incident has taken place in the year 1994. The
Appeal is of the year 2002. Considering the above position, there is
no reason to reverse the order of acquittal. The Appeal is dismissed.
(N.M. JAMDAR, J.)
