State Of Maharashtra vs Shri Moreshwar Chintaman ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 6703 Bom

                                        1                                       apeal642,02




                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                  

                           NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.


 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 642 OF 2002


 State of Maharashtra, 
 through Food Inspector, Office of the
 Assistant Commissioner, Gadchiroli,
 Food & Drugs Administration, 
 M.S. Gadchiroli.                                               ....       APPELLANT


                     VERSUS


 1) Shri Moreshwar Chintaman Khanorkar,
     Aged  38 years, Post - Kurud,
     Tahsil - Wadsa, District - Gadchiroli.

 2) Shri Chintaman Sadashiv Khanorkar,
     Post - Kurud, Tahsil - Wadsa, 
     District - Gadchiroli.                                     ....       RESPONDENTS

 ______________________________________________________________

              Shri N.B. Jawade, Addl.P.P. for the appellant, 
       Sri D.A. Sonwane, Advocate appointed for the respondents. 
  ______________________________________________________________

                              CORAM :  ROHIT B. DEO, J.

                            DATED    :    1
                                               SEPTEMBER, 2017
                                            st



 ORAL JUDGMENT : 

The appellant/State seeks to assail the judgment and

order of acquittal dated 14-5-2002 delivered by the learned Judicial

Magistrate First Class, Desaiganj in Regular Criminal Case 39/1993, by

2 apeal642,02

and under which respondent 2/accused 2 is acquitted for offence

punishable under Sections 16(1)(a)(ii) and 16(1)(a)(i) read with

Sections 2(ia)(a) and 2(ia) (m) and Section 7(i) of the Prevention of

Food Adulteration Act.

2. Indisputably, the Food Inspector did not comply with the

requirement of Rule 14 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules,

1955 (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules") inasmuch as the article

was divided into three parts and each part has wrapped in paper and

then sealed.

3. The learned Magistrate has recorded a finding of fact in

paragraph 17 of the judgment impugned that the sealing of the

samples falls foul of the mandatory provisions of Rule 14 of the Rules.

4. The leaned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri N.B. Jawade

fairly does not dispute the settled position of law that Rule 14 of the

Rules is mandatory. My attention is invited to a judgment of this Court

in the case of Bhojumal Dhanumal Kundal and another vs. Shirpur

Warwade Municipal Council, Shirpur and another reported in 1986

3 apeal642,02

Cri.L.J. 931 which takes a view that Rule 14 of the Rules is

mandatory.

5. From any perspective, the view taken by the learned Court

below is possible and plausible. The judgment is certainly not

perverse. I see no reason to interfere against the judgment of

acquittal. The appeal is sans merits and is dismissed.

Fees for appointed Counsel for the appellant quantified at

Rs.5,000/-.

JUDGE

adgokar