State Of Maharashtra vs Narendra S/O Pullanaji Chandekar
2017 Latest Caselaw 8445 Bom

 apeal411of02.odt                          1




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                    NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.


                     CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.411 OF 2002


 State of Maharashtra
 through Shri. D.T. Sangatsaheb,
 Food Inspector, Food & Drug 
 Administration (M.S.), Chandrapur,
 Tahsil & District Chandrapur.                                           .APPELLANT


          ...V E R S U S...


 Narendra s/o. Pullanaji Chandekar,
 aged about 34 years,
 Proprietor of M/s. Narendra Kiran Stores,
 Pombhurna, Tahsil Gondpipari,
 District. Chandrapur                                                ...RESPONDENT

 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Mr. A.V. Palshikar, Additional Public Prosecutor for appellant.
 Mr. Syed Owais Ahmed, counsel for respondent.
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                            CORAM:      
                                                        ROHIT B. DEO, J. 

DATE:

NOVEMBER 06, 2017

ORAL JUDGMENT:

The State is in appeal challenge the judgment and

order dated 13.2.2002, in Regular Criminal Case 225 of 1993

delivered by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandrapur, by and

under which the respondent Narendra Chandekar is acquitted of

offence punishable under section 7(i) read with section 2(ia) (a)

punishable under section 16(1)(a)(ii), section 7(i) read with

section 2(ia) (m) punishable under section 16(1)(a)(i), section

7(v) read with Rule 32(f) punishable under section 16(1)(a)(ii) of

the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and Rules made

thereunder.

2 Heard Shri. A.V. Palshikar, the learned Additional

Public Prosecutor for the appellant / State and Shri. Syed Owais

Ahmed, the learned counsel for the respondent.

3 Shri. A.V. Palshikar, the learned Additional Public

Prosecutor submits that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has

committed an error in faulting the prosecution for not examining

the wholesale dealer from whom the accused purchased the

biscuits in question. Shri. A.V. Palshikar, the learned APP would

further submit that finding recorded by the learned Chief Judicial

Magistrate that the prosecution did not produce any material on

record to show that an opportunity was given to the accused to

exercise the statutory right to demand that the sample be sent for

analysis to the Central Food Laboratory. The learned APP invited

my attention to the evidence of PW 1 - Food Inspector, who has

deposed that on 19.4.1993, the Local Health Authority informed

the accused about filing of the prosecution in the Court of Law and

that the accused may send sample for analysis if so desired. The

learned APP Shri Palshikar, would further submit that after

instituting the prosecution, the PW 1 intimated to the Local Health

Authority by letter dated 24.4.1993 and in response to the said

letter the Local Health Authority sent an intimation to the accused

alongwith copy of the test report vide letter dated 29.4.1993.

Shri. A.V. Palshikar, the learned APP for the State would

further submit that the finding of the learned Chief Judicial

Magistrate that the report of the analysis does not mention that

the food article is injuries to health, is tenable since admittedly,

the sample of Glucose Bisuits do not confirm to the statutorily

prescribed standards and, is therefore, deemed adulterated under

section 2(i) and (m) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act

("Act" for short).

4 Per contra, Shri. Syed Owais Ahmed, the learned

counsel for the accused would submit that the judgment of

acquittal has taken a possible view and there is no compelling

reason demonstrated for warranting interference by this Court.

Shri. Syed Owais Ahmed, the learned counsel for the accused

invites my attention to the charge Exh. 72. The submission is that

there is absolutely nothing in the charge to put the accused on

notice as to the case which the accused has to meet. The

vagueness of the charge is fatal, is the submission.

5 In view of the submission that the charge is vague, I

have given my anxious consideration to the charge. The charge

beyond making a reference to the various statutory provisions,

does not put the accused on notice as to what is the case of the

complainant and against which allegations the accused is required

to defend himself. The learned counsel for the accused is more

than justified in contending that the vagueness of the charge is

fatal to the prosecution.

6 The vagueness of the charge apart, having examined

the evidence on record holistically, I do not find any compelling

reason to interfere with the judgment of acquittal. The judgment

is not perverse and has taken a possible view.

7 The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, has recorded a

finding of fact that no opportunity was given to the accused to

exercise the statutory right of having the sample analyzed at the

Central Food Laboratory. This finding is not shown to be perverse.

The report of the public analyst does state that the sample does

not confirm to the standards as per the Prevention of Food

Adulteration Rules, 1955 since the month and the year on which

the sample was manufactured is not stated on the label resulting

in contravention of Rules 32(f) of the Prevention of Food

Adulteration Rules, 1955. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate

has held that since the report of the public analyst does not state

that the sample of biscuit packets are found injuries to health, the

sample can not be said to be adulterated. I am not inclined to

make any observation on the correctness or otherwise of the said

finding recorded by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. I am

satisfied, that since the charge is absolutely vague and nothing is

disclosed in the charge other than the statutory provisions, the

judgment of acquittal needs no interference.

8 The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has also faulted

the complainant for not having traced the original manufacturer of

the biscuits seized from the accused. I do not express any opinion

on the said finding. Suffice, it to say that I do not see any

compelling reason to interfere with the judgment of acquittal.

Concededly, the sample is not held to be injuries to health. The

case of the complainant is that the sample does not make any

reference to the date of manufacture but then since the

complainant is admittedly not the manufacturer or the wholesale

dealer and has purchased the biscuit packets from a dealer, whose

role is not investigated. In the absence of any particulars or

details in the charge, I do not consider it appropriate to deal with

the contention of the complainant that the absence of the said

details in the label would render the accused liable for

infringement of the statutory provisions.

On a holistic view, I am satisfied that the appeal is without

merit and I dismiss the same.

JUDGE

RS Belkhede