Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. The relevant facts leading to filing of the present appeal are as under:

2.1. On 03.02.2000, the complainant Arjunbhai Kesarbhai Kher, visited Hari Dugdalay, situated in Trikamrai Chowk area, Kodinar, with panch witness Jivabhai Bhayabhai Jadhav. The accused was present at the shop, and after the complainant introduced himself, he found that the accused was selling milk and milk products, and found three packed tins of ghee of 15 kgs each, and around 10 kilos of ghee in an open tin. After the notice, as per Form-VI was given, the complainant purchased 500 grams of ghee, after stirring the ghee that was in the open NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1634/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025 undefined tin, and took it in a clean and dry steel utensil, and paid the amount of Rs.60/- to the accused. The ghee was placed in three transparent, clean, dry bottles in equal parts, and the bottles were properly sealed, and as per the procedure, a sample was sent to the Public Analyst, Junagadh, and the remaining two samples were sent to the Local Health Authority. The report of the Public Analyst was received, which showed that the sample of ghee did not conform to the standards and provisions laid down under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules 1955, and after the due procedure, the Local Health Authority informed the accused and gave a notice under Section 13(2) of the Act and after the sanction was received, a complaint was filed before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kodinar, under Section 2(i-a),(a), (m) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, and Rule 50, and Section 7(1), (5), and Rule-16 of the Act. 2.2. The accused was duly served with the summons and the accused appeared before the learned Trial Court and it was verified whether the copy of the complaint was provided to the accused as per the provisions of Section 207 of the Code. As the NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1634/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025 undefined case was a private warrant triable case, the complainant Arjunbhai Kesarbhai Kher stepped into the witness box and deposed on oath at Exh.24 and produced the documentary evidences from Exh.24 to Exh.42. Considering the evidence on record, a charge was framed by the learned Trial Court at Exh.48 and the statement of the accused was recorded at Exh.49, wherein, the accused denied all the contents of the charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on record.

9. In light of the above settled principles of law, the evidence is re-appreciated and PW-1 Arjunbhai Keshavbhai Kher, the Food Inspector, has deposed on oath in detail at Exh.24, and has produced all the necessary documents on record. The Food Inspector has stated that the ghee was stirred by the same spoon that was in the tin, and it was taken into a steel vessel, and thereafter, placed in the three bottles. In the cross-examination, the Food Inspector has admitted that he had gone at around 11:00 a.m. and was at the shop for about two to two and a half hours. He cannot say whether the cover of the bottle was made of rubber or wood, but it was of a specific material, which was lying in his office cupboard. He could not say how long the cover was lying and he did not remember NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1634/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025 undefined when was the cover given to him. There is a register of the material maintained in his office and the procedure of taking the sample was done by the helper as per his instructions. The seals on the samples were also placed by the helper as per his instructions, and there were a number of shops near the shop of the accused. He cannot say what were the boards and on those shop he did not purchase the vessel in which the ghee was taken. There was no evidence that the steel vessel was given from the office and he did not take a bill from the accused. As per the report of the Public Analyst, besides the presence of turmeric detected, there were no other adulteration, and turmeric was an edible product and not harmful to the human body. The report was sent by the Public Analyst to his office, and the helper that works as a peon in the office was taken along as a helper. In the entire procedure, he has not mentioned that the helper or the peon was with him, and as a Food Inspector, he has to take certain samples during the month. He cannot say as to when the materials for taking the sample were taken from the office, and the panch witness Jivabhai Jadhav was also the complainant, and on the basis of his complaint, he had come to NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1634/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025 undefined Kodinar to take the sample. He had begun the procedure of taking the sample after Jivabhai Jadhav had come to the spot, and in Form No.VI, it is not mentioned as to from whom the sample was taken. The document at Exh.28 does not bear his signature, and for taking the sample, the entire procedure has to be done by the Food Inspector and the sample too has to be packed by the Food Inspector. The sample has to be sealed by the Food Inspector, but in this case, the entire procedure of taking of the sample and sealing was done by the peon. The three parts were not weighed and divided equally and when he went to take the sample, the vessel and the bottles were not cleaned in the presence of the accused. The label to be affixed on the bottle was brought by him from the office and the sample and the procedure for sending the sample to the Public Analyst was done on the next day of taking the sample. In the label produced at Exh.29, the name of the distributor is not mentioned, and the code number in the forwarding letter and sample number is different. He cannot say as to whether the Local Health Authority had considered the documents prior to giving the sanction and he did not add any preservative in the NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1634/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025 undefined sample. If ghee is kept for a long time, the properties would change, and as per the report of the Public Analyst, six tests were done, out of which, only in one, the result was turmeric detected, and the remaining five tests were proper. Besides the Food Inspector, no other witness has been examined, and the closing pursis was filed by the complainant at Exh.53.

10. On minute appreciation of the entire evidence of the prosecution, as per the evidence the sample was taken on 03.02.2000 and the report of the Public Analyst is dated 21.02.2000, the complaint has been filed by the complainant on 08.09.2000 and the complaint has been filed after a delay of more than seven months, but there is no explanation for the delay in filing of the complaint. After the complaint was filed, the accused had appeared before the learned Trial Court and had given an application for sending the sample to the Central Food Laboratory and accordingly the sample was sent, and the report of the Central Food Laboratory is produced at Exh.70. As per the Central Food Laboratory report at Exh.70, the test for turmeric was positive, but the other parameters are shown to be different NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1634/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025 undefined from the report of the Public Analyst. On appreciation of the evidence, as per the case of the complainant, the procedure of taking the sample, sealing the bottles, and placing the samples was done by the helper, but the helper has not been examined before the learned Trial Court. Moreover, the entire procedure was done in the presence of one Jivabai Bhayabai Jadhav, who was the complainant, who had filed the application, and on the basis of that application, the Food Inspector had gone to Kodinar and visited the shop of the accused, and only after he arrived at the shop, the procedure of taking the sample was done, but the said Jivabai Bhayabai Jadhav has not been examined before the learned Trial Court. As far as the method of taking the sample is concerned, there is no evidence that the entire contents of the tin was stirred properly, so as to make the sample homogeneous and representative, and it is also on record that the bottles and utensils were not cleaned at the place from where the sample was taken by the complainant. In the evidence of the complainant, it is on record that the sample was taken in a steel utensil, but the complainant did not know from where the steel utensil was brought, and even the spoon that was used to stir the NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1634/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025 undefined ghee belonged to the accused. Moreover, as there is no evidence as to when the bottles and utensils were cleaned, the mandatory requirements laid down under Rule-14 cannot be said to have been duly complied with. There is no explanation for the delay in launching the prosecution and it is on record that the complainant did not add any preservative to the sample. The sample was taken on 21.02.2000 and the complaint was filed on 28-09-2000, and it was examined at the Central Food Laboratory on 16-10-2000, that is more than eight months, after the sample was taken.