1 Cri.Appln.4629.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4629 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtara APPLICANT VERSUS Vishal Kashmirilal Agrawal & anr RESPONDENTS ..... Shri N.H. Borade, APP for the applicants Shri Joydeep Chatterji, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 & 2 ..... CORAM : U.D. SALVI, J. DATED : 14 th September, 2011. PER COURT : 1. Heard. Perused application and the record. 2. Leave is being sought to prefer an appeal against the Judgment and order of acquittal of the accused No. 1-Vishal Agrawal and accused No. 2- Kamaladevi Agrawal, Vendor and proprietor respectively of M/s. Vishal Agencies in the Criminal case -R.C.C. No. 117/2000, under Section 16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 read with Rules 24 and Rule 29 framed thereunder( for short the ‘said Act’) delivered by learned Chief 2 Cri.Appln.4629.10 Judicial Magistrate, Jalna on 05-06-2010. Fact of purchasing Company packed glass bottle “ B protein” ( an ideal protein food Beverage) from the shop of M/s. Vishal Agencies on 30-09-1998 is not in dispute. The prosecution case is that M/s. Vishal Agency, run and owned by the said accused, had put on sale the said food article containing extraneous synthetic food colour and Tetrazine and less amount of protein than declared on label in contravention of Rule 24 & 29 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. 3. Learned APP for the State, submitted that the Public Analyst has shown that the said article put on sale by the accused was adulterated, as envisaged under sub clause m of clause i(a) of Section 2 of the said Act and was also mis-branded within the meaning of clause IX of Section 2 of the said Act; and there is no legal flaw committed by the investigating agency in bringing on record the said incriminating facts. 4. Inviting attention to Section 19(2) of the said Act, learned Advocate for the accused, submitted that the accused have discharged their burden to prove the defence as available under the said provision, and this could be read from para No. 23 to 27 of the impugned Judgment. He pointed out from the evidence that the accused had purchased the said food article from the licensed 3 Cri.Appln.4629.10 dealer i.e. the accused No. 5- M/s. Vinayak Enterprises a partnership firm of accused Nos. 3 & 4, which had received it from the respondent No. 6- British Biological, Banglore. 5. At para No. 25 of the impugned Judgment, the learned Trial Court quoted the relevant Section as under : “ Now I would like to go through the provisions of Section 19(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, it reads as under :- “ A vendor shall not be deemed to have committed an offence pertaining to the sale of any adulterated or misbranded article of food if he proves :-(a) that he purchased the article of food (i) in a case where a license is prescribed for the sale thereof, from a duly licensed manufacturer, distributor or dealer; (ii) in any other case, from any manufacturer, distributor or dealer; (ii) in any other case, from any manufacturer, distributor or dealer with a written warranty in the prescribed from; and (b) that the article of food while in his possession was properly stored and that he sold it in the same state as he purchased it.” Letter (Exhibit 66) of M/s. Vinayak Enterprises, which has been tendered in evidence by the prosecution through PW-1- Tuljadas Boralkar, reveals that the food article in question was purchased by 4 Cri.Appln.4629.10 M/s. Vishal Agency from them and they were holding licence at the material time, and the said articles were purchased by them- Vinayak Enterprises from M/s. British Biological, Banglore. Thus, it can be held that the accused succeeded in proving the fact that the food article in question was purchased by them from a licensed dealer, and as such they cannot be saddled with culpability by virtue of Section 19(2) of the said Act. 5. Observations made by the learned trial Court in para Nos. 26 & 27, which are quoted here-in-below :- “Section 19(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act clearly reveals that once information regarding manufacturer and supplier is furnished to the concerned authority his liability comes to an end. Accused No. 1 & 2 purchaser of the product from accused No. 5 under bill Nos. 63, 66 and 67. Accused No. 6 has sold through Vinayak Enterprises, Pune who is accused Nos. 3 & 4 are partners of firm of accused No. 5. This fact is admitted by the prosecution. Moreover in para No. 17 of the deposition of PW 1 the food inspector has submitted that both the accused Nos. 5 & 6 are licence holders. Thus accused Nos. 1 & 2 have purchased the product company packed bottles from licence holders under the bills. The food inspector has taken sample as well as 5 Cri.Appln.4629.10 accused are not liable for any breach of rules 24 & 29 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. Only the manufacturer company i.e. accused No. 6 is liable for the same. This fact is also admitted by PW 1 food inspector in the end of his cross-examination. So accused Nos. 1 & 2 are entitled for acquittal.” reveal its mind in coming to the conclusion in favour of the accused. 6. The learned APP conceded that there is no flaw in the observations made by the learned trial Court as aforesaid. 7. No interference is therefore, warranted in the impugned Judgment. Leave is, therefore, refused. Criminal Application No. 4629 /2010 stands disposed off accordingly. ( U.D. SALVI, J. ) SDM* September-11