Bombay High Court
The State Of Maharashtra vs Vasant Rameshwar Mitkari & Ors on 11 May, 2017
Bench: Dr. Shalini Phansalkar-Joshi
RJ APEAL NO.292 OF 2002.odt
vks
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 292 OF 2002
The State of Maharashtra ]
at the instance of Mr. M.S. Kembalkar ] Appellant
Food Inspector, FDA, Pune ]
V/s.
1. Shri. Vasant Rameshwar Mitkari ]
Vendor of M/s Gurukrupa Trading Co. ]
378, Market yard, Pune 37. ]
] Respondents
2. Sou. Leela Vasant Mitkari ] Original
Proprietor of M/s Gurukrupa Trading Co. ] Accused Nos.
378, Market yard, Pune 37. ] 1 to 3.
]
3. Jayraj Kesarimal Doshi ]
Proprietor of M/s Jay Spices ]
420 Market Yard Pune 37. ]
Mr. Amit Palkar, APP for the State
None for the Respondents
CORAM : DR.SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.
DATED : 9th MAY, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1] By this appeal, the State is challenging the judgment
RJ APEAL NO.292 OF 2002.odt
and order dated 25.4.2001, passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Pune, in R.C.C. NO.100 of 1997, thereby acquitting respondents
for the offences under Section 7(i) read with Sections 2(ia) (a),
2(ia)(f), 2(ia) (m) punishable under Sections 16(1)(a)(ii) and
16(1)(a)(i) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.
2] Brief facts of the appeal can be stated as follows :-
On 29.10.1996, at about 2.00 p.m., P.W.2 Food
Inspector Ugale, visited the shop of M/s Gurukrupa Trading
Company alongwith Assistant Commissioner, Sampling Assistant
Mr. Pawar and panch witness Mr. Awate. Respondent No.2, who
was Proprietor of M/s Gurukrupa Trading Company and
respondent No.1 the Vendor, were present in the shop. After
disclosing the intention of their visit, P.W.1 Ubale purchased
sample of 600 grams of ginger (whole) from two cardboard boxes
kept in the shop. The said sample was divided into three equal
parts and filled in three empty clean glass bottles. Bottles were
sealed. Panchnama was made. Out of three bottles, one was sent
on the next day to Public Analyst, Pune whereas; remaining two
bottles were sent to Local Health Analyzer, Pune. As per the
report received from Public Analyst, it was found that the sample
RJ APEAL NO.292 OF 2002.odt
was not conforming to the standards of whole ginger and hence
after necessary permission, case came to be filed against
respondent Nos. 1 and 2 being vendor and Proprietor of
Gurukrupa Trading and against No.3 -Proprietor of M/s Jay
Spices, who had supplied whole ginger to respondent No.2.
3] Learned trial Court, after hearing both sides and after
recording of evidence, was pleased to frame charge against
respondents vide Exh.71. Respondents pleaded not guilty and
claimed trial raising the defence of denial.
4] In support of its case, four witnesses were examined by
the prosecution, including P.W.2 Food Inspector Ugale, P. W.1
complainant Shri. Kembalkar, P.W.3 Public Analyst Shri.
Rawetkar, P.W.4 panch Shri. Avte. On appreciation of their
evidence, the trial Court, found several lacunas and technical
infirmities, like breach of mandatory procedure in collecting and
sealing the sample bottles etc. As a result, the trial Court acquitted
respondents of all the charges levelled against them.
5] In this appeal, I have heard learned APP, who has
made frail attempt to support the impugned judgment and order
RJ APEAL NO.292 OF 2002.odt
of the trial Court. However, on perusal of the judgment of the trial
Court, this Court is unable to accept the submissions advanced by
learned APP, especially having regard to the scope of interference
in an appeal against acquittal which is limited one. As per well
settled position of law, unless it is shown that the impugned
judgment and order is manifestly illegal or perverse, being
against the material on record, this Court in sitting over appeal
against acquittal cannot be justified in interfering with the same.
6] The perusal of the judgment of the trial Court reveals
that trial Court has considered all the aspects of the case and
found that the mandatory provisions of the Prevention of Food
Adulteration Act, 1954 and the rules framed thereunder are not
followed strictly and as a result the benefit of doubt was extended
to the respondents. The trial Court has found that no evidence
was brought on record to show that the bottles in which samples
were collected were clean and dry. The trial Court has also
considered the fact that particulars of the label i.e. Code Number
and serial number under which samples were sent to Local Health
Analyzer, were not given. Even there was no evidence that seals
on the samples were compared with the specimen impression.
The trial Court also found through cross examination of P.W.2
RJ APEAL NO.292 OF 2002.odt
Ugale that samples were collected from two cardboard boxes and
no method was followed for mixing the same. The trial Court also
observed, on the basis of admission given by P.W.2 Ugale, in his
cross examination, that samples were not properly divided in
three equal parts.
7] Major lacuna which the trial Court noticed and which
cannot be cured is that of Public Analyst report exh.54, according
to which samples of ginger were not conforming with the
standards. However, it is admitted position that standards of
ginger are not prescribed under Appendix B of the Prevention of
Food Adulteration (Rules), 1955. The Public Analyst report does
not specifically disclose that the ginger was to be insect-infected,
as required under Section 2(ia) (f) of the Prevention of Food
Adulteration Act. Moreover, Public Analyst Report also does not
state that ginger was found to be unfit for human consumption. As
a result, it was difficult to accept that the ginger was found to be
adulterated, beyond reasonable doubt. The trial Court has
considered all these aspects .
8] In view of this evidence and infirmities in the case put
up by prosecution, it cannot be said that the trial Court has
RJ APEAL NO.292 OF 2002.odt
committed any error or illegality, much less acted perversity, in
acquitting the respondents of the charges levelled against them.
Thus, the view taken by the trial Court being a plausible and
possible view, no interference is warranted therein. The appeal,
therefore, stands dismissed. Bail Bonds of the respondents stand
cancelled.
[DR.SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.]
