1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 250 OF 1996 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 250 OF 1996 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 250 OF 1996 The State of Maharashtra ... Appellant The State of Maharashtra ... Appellant The State of Maharashtra ... Appellant (Org. Complainant) (Org. Complainant) (Org. Complainant) Versus Versus Versus Dilipkumar Prabhudayal Mangla ) Dilipkumar Prabhudayal Mangla ) Dilipkumar Prabhudayal Mangla ) of M/s. Hotel Maharaje, ) of M/s. Hotel Maharaje, ) of M/s. Hotel Maharaje, ) Tika No.13, S.No.126, ) Tika No.13, S.No.126, ) Tika No.13, S.No.126, ) Jambhalinaka, Thane. )..Respondent Jambhalinaka, Thane. )..Respondent Jambhalinaka, Thane. )..Respondent (Org. Accused) (Org. Accused) (Org. Accused) Shri B.H. Mehta, A.P.P. for the Appellant/State. Shri B.H. Mehta, A.P.P. for the Appellant/State. Shri B.H. Mehta, A.P.P. for the Appellant/State. Respondent absent, though served. Respondent absent, though served. Respondent absent, though served. CORAM: S.K.SHAH,J. CORAM: S.K.SHAH,J. CORAM: S.K.SHAH,J. DATE : 22nd December,2004 DATE : 22nd December,2004 DATE : 22nd December,2004 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. The prosecution has field this Appeal against the 1. The prosecution has field this Appeal against the 1. The prosecution has field this Appeal against the order of acquittal passed by the Chief Judicial order of acquittal passed by the Chief Judicial order of acquittal passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thane, in R.C.C. No. 301 of 1993 whereby Magistrate, Thane, in R.C.C. No. 301 of 1993 whereby Magistrate, Thane, in R.C.C. No. 301 of 1993 whereby the respondent-accused was acquitted of the offences the respondent-accused was acquitted of the offences the respondent-accused was acquitted of the offences 2 punishable under Section 7(v) of Prevention of Food punishable under Section 7(v) of Prevention of Food punishable under Section 7(v) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 read with Section 29 of Adulteration Act, 1954 read with Section 29 of Adulteration Act, 1954 read with Section 29 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 and Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 and Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 and punishable under Section 16 of the Prevention of Food punishable under Section 16 of the Prevention of Food punishable under Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. Adulteration Rules. Adulteration Rules. 2. The complaint was filed by the Food Inspector 2. The complaint was filed by the Food Inspector 2. The complaint was filed by the Food Inspector alleging that on 13.5.1992 at 3.00 p.m., he visited alleging that on 13.5.1992 at 3.00 p.m., he visited alleging that on 13.5.1992 at 3.00 p.m., he visited the Hotel of the accused situated at Jambhalinaka, the Hotel of the accused situated at Jambhalinaka, the Hotel of the accused situated at Jambhalinaka, Thane, belonging to the accused. He purchased 600 Thane, belonging to the accused. He purchased 600 Thane, belonging to the accused. He purchased 600 gms. of vegetable rice Pulav at the price of Rs.41/-. gms. of vegetable rice Pulav at the price of Rs.41/-. gms. of vegetable rice Pulav at the price of Rs.41/-. He divided 600 grams of the sample in three equal He divided 600 grams of the sample in three equal He divided 600 grams of the sample in three equal parts of 200 grams in clean, dry and empty glass parts of 200 grams in clean, dry and empty glass parts of 200 grams in clean, dry and empty glass bottle and sealed it. He sent the samples to the bottle and sealed it. He sent the samples to the bottle and sealed it. He sent the samples to the Public Analyst who reported that the sample contained Public Analyst who reported that the sample contained Public Analyst who reported that the sample contained extraneous Synthetic dye sunset yellow extraneous Synthetic dye sunset yellow extraneous Synthetic dye sunset yellow FCF-cormosinedye which was in contravention of the FCF-cormosinedye which was in contravention of the FCF-cormosinedye which was in contravention of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. Therefore, the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. Therefore, the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. Therefore, the complainant filed the complaint. complainant filed the complaint. complainant filed the complaint. 3. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge 3. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge 3. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge levelled against him. His defence was that the levelled against him. His defence was that the levelled against him. His defence was that the quantity of sample collected by the complainant was quantity of sample collected by the complainant was quantity of sample collected by the complainant was insufficient and that 600 grams of vegetable rice insufficient and that 600 grams of vegetable rice insufficient and that 600 grams of vegetable rice Pulav was the remaining quantity. Pulav was the remaining quantity. Pulav was the remaining quantity. 4. The evidence that was led before the learned 4. The evidence that was led before the learned 4. The evidence that was led before the learned 3 Magistrate was that of Food Inspector - complainant, Magistrate was that of Food Inspector - complainant, Magistrate was that of Food Inspector - complainant, the panch witness who turned hostile and the Assistant the panch witness who turned hostile and the Assistant the panch witness who turned hostile and the Assistant of the Food Inspector who accompanied the Food of the Food Inspector who accompanied the Food of the Food Inspector who accompanied the Food Inspector at the time of the incident. Inspector at the time of the incident. Inspector at the time of the incident. 5. The learned Magistrate passed the order of 5. The learned Magistrate passed the order of 5. The learned Magistrate passed the order of acquittal on the ground that there was no reference to acquittal on the ground that there was no reference to acquittal on the ground that there was no reference to the plastic mug in which the sample was collected and, the plastic mug in which the sample was collected and, the plastic mug in which the sample was collected and, therefore, there was violation of Rule 14 of the therefore, there was violation of Rule 14 of the therefore, there was violation of Rule 14 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. He further Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. He further Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. He further held that there was no evidence to show that the held that there was no evidence to show that the held that there was no evidence to show that the complainant had placed the seal on the cork of each complainant had placed the seal on the cork of each complainant had placed the seal on the cork of each bottle and that there was violation of Rule 16 of the bottle and that there was violation of Rule 16 of the bottle and that there was violation of Rule 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. He also Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. He also Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. He also further held that there was non-compliance of Section further held that there was non-compliance of Section further held that there was non-compliance of Section 11(1)(c)(i) and Section 11(1)(c)(ii) of the Act which 11(1)(c)(i) and Section 11(1)(c)(ii) of the Act which 11(1)(c)(i) and Section 11(1)(c)(ii) of the Act which was mandatory. He also further held that the consent was mandatory. He also further held that the consent was mandatory. He also further held that the consent which was accorded by the Joint Commissioner for which was accorded by the Joint Commissioner for which was accorded by the Joint Commissioner for prosecution of the accused was without any application prosecution of the accused was without any application prosecution of the accused was without any application of mind. On all these counts, he acquitted the of mind. On all these counts, he acquitted the of mind. On all these counts, he acquitted the accused. accused. accused. 6. The learned A.P.P. took me through the evidence 6. The learned A.P.P. took me through the evidence 6. The learned A.P.P. took me through the evidence and the judgment of the trial Court and he contended and the judgment of the trial Court and he contended and the judgment of the trial Court and he contended that there was no violation of the Rules. that there was no violation of the Rules. that there was no violation of the Rules. 7. On examination of the evidence, it is found that 7. On examination of the evidence, it is found that 7. On examination of the evidence, it is found that 4 the bottle in which sample of 200 grams of Pulav was the bottle in which sample of 200 grams of Pulav was the bottle in which sample of 200 grams of Pulav was collected was not sealed as required by the provisions collected was not sealed as required by the provisions collected was not sealed as required by the provisions of Rules 14 and 16 of the Prevention of Food of Rules 14 and 16 of the Prevention of Food of Rules 14 and 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. There was also no evidence to Adulteration Rules. There was also no evidence to Adulteration Rules. There was also no evidence to show that the plastic mug in which the sample was show that the plastic mug in which the sample was show that the plastic mug in which the sample was collected before transferring into the bottles was collected before transferring into the bottles was collected before transferring into the bottles was cleaned, dried and was empty. This is also in cleaned, dried and was empty. This is also in cleaned, dried and was empty. This is also in contravention of Rules 14 and 16 of the said Rules. contravention of Rules 14 and 16 of the said Rules. contravention of Rules 14 and 16 of the said Rules. The provisions of Rules 14 and 16 are mandatory and The provisions of Rules 14 and 16 are mandatory and The provisions of Rules 14 and 16 are mandatory and non-compliance thereof will result in the order of non-compliance thereof will result in the order of non-compliance thereof will result in the order of acquittal. acquittal. acquittal. 8. The order of acquittal passed by the learned 8. The order of acquittal passed by the learned 8. The order of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court was proper. Consequently, I do not find trial Court was proper. Consequently, I do not find trial Court was proper. Consequently, I do not find any merit in this Appeal. any merit in this Appeal. any merit in this Appeal. The Appeal is, therefore, dismissed. The Appeal is, therefore, dismissed. The Appeal is, therefore, dismissed. --- --- --- (S.K.SHAH,J.) (S.K.SHAH,J.) (S.K.SHAH,J.)