Bombay High Court
State Of Maharashtra vs Baban S/O Bhimrao Kale And Another on 28 February, 2018
Author: Rohit B. Deo
Bench: Rohit B. Deo
apeal177.03.J.odt 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.177 O
F 2003
State of Maharashtra,
through M.S. Patil,
Food Inspector,
Food & Drugs Administration,
M.S. Chandrapur. ....... APPELLANT
...V E R S U S...
1] Baban s/o Bhimrao Kale,
Aged about 20 years,
Occupation: Business,
Vendor of M/s. Dhanwantari Kirana
and General Stores, Ravindranagar
Ward, Near Hanuman Mandir,
Ballarpur, Dist. Chandrapur.
Name of R-2 2] Vasudeo s/o Vithoba Kale,
deleted as per Aged about 70 years,
Court's order
dated 12.11.03 Occupation: Business,
Vendor of M/s. Dhanwantari Kirana
and General Stores, Ravindranagar
Ward, Near Hanuman Mandir,
Ballarpur, Dist. Chandrapur. ....... RESPONDENTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri N.R. Patil, APP for Appellant-State.
None for Respondents-Accused.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM: ROHIT B. DEO , J.
DATE: th
28 FEBRUARY,
201
8 .
::: Uploaded on - 28/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 01/03/2018 02:17:23 :::
apeal177.03.J.odt 2
ORAL JUDGMENT
1] The State is in appeal challenging the judgment and order dated 30.09.2002 rendered by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajura in Regular Criminal Case 153/1993, by and under which, the accused are acquitted of offence punishable under Section 7(1) read with Section 16(1)(a)(ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.
2] Heard Shri N.R. Patil, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant-State. None for the accused. 3] The complainant M.S. Patil, the Food Inspector for the Ballarpur region, inspected a grocery shop at Ballarpur "Dhanwantari Kirana and General Stores", in the presence of the vendor Baban Kale. The complainant purchased 450 grams groundnut oil packed in polythene bags in the presence of the panch, the groundnut oil was divided into three parts and separately packed. One sample was sent to Public Health Laboratory, Nagpur for analysis and the remaining two samples ::: Uploaded on - 28/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 01/03/2018 02:17:23 ::: apeal177.03.J.odt 3 were sent to the Local Authority, Chandrapur. The report of Public Analyst was received through local health authority on 25.09.1992 reporting that the sample was adulterated. Pursuant to consent obtained from the local health authority, the complainant instituted the complaint on 14.05.1993. The copy of Public Analyst report and intimation of institution of the complaint were sent to the accused.
4] Accused Baban applied for sending the second sample for reanalysis to the Central Food Laboratory, vide application Exh. 4 dated 28.05.1993. This application was allowed and the second sample of the seized groundnut oil was sent to Central Food Laboratory. The report of the Central Food Laboratory Exh.52 also states that the sample is found adulterated.
5] I have carefully scrutinized the record and the reasoning recorded by the learned Magistrate for acquitting the accused. Having done so, I do not find any infirmity in the judgment of acquittal.
::: Uploaded on - 28/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 01/03/2018 02:17:23 ::: apeal177.03.J.odt 4 6] The two reports Exh.46 and 52 of the Public Analyst and the Central Food Laboratory are inconsistent and cannot be reconciled. The report of the Public Analyst states that the sample of groundnut oil is adulterated with custard oil. However, the presence of custard oil is not detected in the analysis of the Central Food Laboratory. The finding that the sample is adulterated recorded in the report Exh.52 issued by the Central Food Laboratory is based on the B.R. Reading and Bellier temperature of sample. The B.R. Reading is found .3 above the maximum and Bellier temperature is found .8 degree above the normal temperature. Pertinently, the report of the Public Analyst Exh.46 makes no reference to the B.R. Reading being above the maximum limits. The learned Magistrate has noted that the analysis was done by the Central Food Laboratory after one and half years from the analysis of the Public Analyst. The learned Magistrate has recorded a finding that due to the long period intervening the possibility of B.R. Reading and Bellier temperature increasing, cannot be ruled out.
7] The learned Magistrate has held that the defence that ::: Uploaded on - 28/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 01/03/2018 02:17:23 ::: apeal177.03.J.odt 5 the samples were collected in clean bottles is a probable defence. The defence is probablized by the fact that while traces of custard oils were detected in the analysis of the Public Analyst, the report of the Central Food Laboratory makes no reference to the presence of custard oil. The view taken by the learned Magistrate is a possible view. No compelling reason is demonstrated to interfere in the judgment of acquittal.
8] The appeal is sans merit and is rejected.
JUDGE
NSN
::: Uploaded on - 28/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 01/03/2018 02:17:23 :::