Bombay High Court
State Of Mah.Thr. F.I. Buldana vs Jugalkishor Rameshwar Malpani on 15 May, 2017
Bench: S.B. Shukre
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
Criminal Appeal No. 111 of 2004
Appellant : State of Maharashtra, through Madhukar Sopan
Patil, aged 48 years, Food Inspector, Administ-
rative Commissioner, Food & Drugs Admn. Bldg.
Opp. Bus Stand, Buldana
versus
Respondent : Jugalkishor Rameshwar Malpani, aged about
35 years, Seller & Owner, M/s Quality Spices,
Chandak Factor Compound, Malkapur, District
Buldana
Ms Nivedita Mehta, Addl. Public Prosecutor for appellant-State
Shri S. G. Joshi, Advocate for respondents
Coram : S. B. Shukre, J
Dated : 15th May 2017
Oral Judgment
1. This appeal challenges the legality and correctness of judgment
and order dated 26th August 2003 rendered in Regular Criminal Case No. 250 of
1996 by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Malkapur whereby the respondent
has been acquitted of the offence under Sections 6 and 7 (I) read with Section 2
(ia) (a) (b) (j) punishable under Section 16 (1) (a) (ii) and offence under
Section 7 (ii) read with Section 2 (ix) (d) punishable under Section 16 (1) (a)
(I) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.
2. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor strenuously contends that
the learned Magistrate has not applied the spirit of mandatory rules to the facts
of the case and, therefore, has wrongly concluded that the benefit of non-
observance of the Rules must go to the respondent.
3. Shri Joshi, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand,
submits that there was no compliance of rule 16 of the Prevention of Food
Adulteration Rules, which was mandatory. He submits that sample was not sent
for re-analysis even though the respondent had deposited requisite charges
therefor.
4. Upon considering record of the case and impugned judgment and
order, I find that there is great substance in the argument of learned counsel for
respondent and no merit in the argument of learned Additional Public
Prosecutor.
5. This is a case wherein admittedly mandatory rules of procedure
have not been followed by the Food Inspector. The charge of adulteration was
in respect of chilly powder, samples of which were collector by the Food
Inspector from the shop of respondent. It is seen from the evidence available on
record that while collecting these samples, the procedure as prescribed under
rule 16 of the Rules was not followed by the Food Inspector which created
possibility of tampering with samples so collected. The samples were collected
in plastic bags, but no strong thick brown paper was used by the Inspector for
wrapping the plastic bags. There is also no evidence brought on record to show
that the paper slips which were pasted over the samples were so pasted in round
fashion from bottom to top and that the container was tied with thread which
was appropriately secured. Thus, there was non-compliance of the mandatory
procedure contained in rule 16 of the Rules.
6. It is further seen from record that there was non-compliance of the
provisions contained in Section 13 (2) (a) and Section 13 (2) (b) of the
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Respondent applied for re-analysis on
6.1.1997 and he deposited necessary charges also on 7.1.1997. However, the
property which was required to be deposited within five days, was deposited on
30.1.1997, after about 22 days. This aspect of the case was appropriately
considered by the learned Magistrate by applying the ratio laid down in the case
of Jayantilal Thakurdas Suratwala & anr v. State of Maharashtra reported in
1985 Mah. L. R. 616.
7. Neither any illegality nor any perversity could be noticed in the
impugned judgment and order. There is no substance in the appeal and it
deserves to be dismissed.
8. In the result, Criminal Appeal stands dismissed.
S. B. SHUKRE, J
joshi
