Bombay High Court
State Of Maharashtra vs Dwarkadas Mohanlal Suchak And ... on 1 September, 2017
Bench: R. B. Deo
1 apeal671.02
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 671 OF 2002
State of Maharashtra,
at the instance of Bharatsingh Umraosingh
Patil, Food Inspector, Food & Drugs
Administration, Maharashtra State,
Shivaji Nagar, Yavatmal. .... APPELLANT
VERSUS
1) Dwarkadas Mohanlal Suchak,
Aged about 43 years,
Vendor of M/s. Mohanlal Tulsidas,
Athwadi Bazar, Kalamb, District Yavatmal.
2) Smt. Vrajkuwar Mohanlal Suchak,
Proprietor, M/s. Mohanlal Tulsidas
Athawadi Bazar, Kalamb, District
Yavatmal. .... 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 16-7-2002, delivered by the learned Judicial Magistrate
2 apeal671.02
First Class, Kalamb in Regular Criminal Case 12/1993, by and under
which the respondents were acquitted of offence punishable under
Section 7(i) read with Section 2(ia)(a), 2(ia)(c) and under Section
16(1)(a)(ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.
2. The learned 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 All India Prevention
of Food Adulteration Journal 23 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
admits that he used the measuring instrument which was
brought by accused No.1 from his house for collection of
3 apeal671.02
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
