Bombay High Court
State Of Maharashtra vs Meghraj Gokulmal Swalani And 2 ... on 1 September, 2017
Bench: R. B. Deo
1 apeal531.02
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 531 OF 2002
State of Maharashtra,
through Shri S.A. Chogule,
Food Inspector, Food & Drugs
Administration, Amravati. .... APPELLANT
VERSUS
1) Meghraj Gokulmal Swalani,
Aged about 35 years,
Partner and Vendor of M/s Satguru
Tel Bhandar, Amravati.
2) Jagatram Gokulmal Sawalani,
Partner of M/s Sadguru Tel Bhandar,
3) M/s Satguru Tel Bhandar,
Walgaon Road, Amravati. .... RESPONDENTS
______________________________________________________________
Shri A.V. Palshikar, Addl.P.P. for the appellant,
None 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 dated 30-3-2002, delivered by the learned Chief Judicial
2 apeal531.02
Magistrate, Amravati in Regular Criminal Complaint Case 155/1993,
by and under which the respondents were acquitted of offence
punishable under Section 7(i) read with Section 2(ia)(a)(m)
punishable under Section 16(1)(i)(a) of the Prevention of Food
Adulteration Act.
2. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate was pleased to
record a finding of fact that the Food Inspector did not stir the
groundnut oil to ensure that the same is homogeneous. The learned
Magistrate inter alia relied on a reported judgment of the Madhya
Pradesh High Court in the case of Satyanarayn Gupta vs. Mohanlal
reported in F.F.R. 1999(1) which propounded that if the sample is
taken without stirring the oil, the sample is not representative. This
Court has also taken a similar view in State of Maharashtra Vs.
Vinayak Mahadeorao Waze & Another reported in 2005 All MR
(Cri) 1174 and the relevant observation are thus :
"7. This Court has given thoughtful consideration to the
contentions canvassed by the learned counsel for the
parties. The Food Inspector Narayan (P.W.1) clearly
admits in his cross-examination that he did not carry with
him any measuring instrument for taking out the sample
of the groundnut oil from the unlabelled sealed tin which
was kept in their shop. He also clearly admits that the oil
was not stirred before collection of the sample. He also
3 apeal531.02
admits that he used the measuring instrument which was
brought by accused No.1 from his house for collection of
the said sample. He further admits that the sample was
divided into three parts and was collected by pouring the
oil into three different bottles, but he did not clean and dry
those bottles in presence of the accused and panch witness
Mubarak. He further admits that while taking the sample
he poured the ground-nut oil by using the funnel from the
shop of the accused and that the funnel was being used by
the seller for the sale of various kinds of oil. In such
circumstances, it is quite obvious that the sample was
improperly taken and failure to obtain the proper sample
makes the subsequent analysis worthless."
3. The judgment of acquittal does not suffer from any
perversity. The appeal is sans merits and is rejected.
JUDGE
adgokar
