IN THE I'IEGH CUM OF WEE PRADE$ AT JABALPUR O (Mlscjal. CAL‘SE No. §¢12 g/sg Criminal Appéal No. i’ g 89 ‘ W State jo£ M.P. { APPE LLANT J-Vs- Gaff Bhai 5/9 Dada hai aged 38‘ years ccupation “erehant Digtt. ‘jastar. RESPONDENI Q. AND CRIMINAL APPEAL U s 378 AcQUIT'rgg. EFENCE U S 7 16 of PREMTION OF ADULTERATION ACT. z ag § O . 1 / D 5‘; ‘I'u' i‘ 1‘3 XI—HC—78 WWW WWW matwm WW#WW éwTEawm (H.032OG7 Shn‘ Anm Sag, Govt. Advocatf: for the State] appallant. D1". N.K. Shukla, Sr. Advocate with AK. Yadav, counsel for tha fespand€ntf accused“ 'Arguman ts haard. Judgment passed as follows: SUNIL KUMAR §INHA2 J. Being aggrievsd with tllle judgment of acquittal dat€d 4,! 7/88, passed in Criminal} Case. Judicial Magistratq DiStn‘C? Stats had preferred a11 apf appeal under Section 378 (iii which, the leave wae grante 13/2] 1989 aod the matteir was regietered as Criminal Appeal No. 1269/ 1989, which is heir 1at the in Village —- Aamaheda, RS. Bastar, the aecused/ respondnet was Food Inspector namely Gangasharan op of the respondent on 021' 12f 1985 of the. said shop. The respondent told up to date. arid/he saine‘has been No.122/86 by the Additional Chief — Kanker, Camp at Naryageur, the Qication for grant of leave to me ail ,) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in i by the High Court vide order dated The brief facts are t] lg disposed ofliy this judgmeiit. Amhagarh Cliowki, District -- haviilg a gt‘oceiy shop The Gupta (PW- l} visited the sh and asked about licence ete‘ to him that hie licence was GRA L JUDGMENT 1e 1.03.2cc71 WW(W) XI—HC—78 HWWW . (in, ? $y 200 W$XW WWW mmwm L WW§WW $WW depositad for renewal with Iilspgcim‘ saw that caltaia p shap for sale. He gava a mat pack€ts of biscuits after paying R$.18;’- for the samE. purcha$ing th€ sampla, he Saakf} th€ sama ami .13 preca€dix1gs. 911E pauka 0 Public A11aiy3t, 1113231 whe According 1:0 the said rapm’t Thereaftmy am accused] res Ssctjou 13 (2) of fhe Prevsn aftm LomplEtmn of *hé o 1161‘ charge. 3he€t was filau bgfor ?/’16 of fh€ Prevantion 9f FO referred to as “‘ m Act” The charges were framed and exp1ained to the accused/respondent Seetion 7 read with 16 {1 03/68] 198?, which were denied b" ‘he accused] respondent 311d the trial commenced. Em 11g the course of tnal, the ‘proseeution examined only 2 witnesses. Thereafter, aceu t116 c011cen1ed authm’i’ry‘ The Food ack€iS of hiscuits are also kept in tho 'Lce to fhe mspondeilt ami purchased 6 After iivided tho packots: mic 3 pajts 311d aared Parichnama of $116 aforasaid ample was tent for analysls to Hue rho raport (EXPI?) was recewod. sample was founci to he aaulteratad. ondent was sew-Ed with notico undar 11 of Foot} Ariulteration Act, 1954 and rormalities and Enquiry in this rogard, e tho concerned Court u11d€r S€Ctio11 0d Adul‘uerafion Act, 1.954 (hemmaftar The charges were also framed. under ) (A) ' (1) of the aforesaid Act on eed/ respondent was examined. under Section 313 Cr.P.C., who denied the materiai appearing against him and stated that he had the Shop of Mohd. Iqbal in any adultelation in the. same purchased the aforesaid. articles from sealed condition and he has not made P.T.O. mmaaiaaw) 1 fj r l XI-HC—78 WWW (/L . .. 99.. . f 200 WW(W) man‘rfiqfa? 3211mm Wwm z WW§WW éqaw%um The learned Maglsheue after haarms: £116 arguments of the thE accumdfreygcndent of the said ugned judgment dated 04/?[88. it is cquittal; fhe State has preferred this respact"? partms acqmtféd Charges by passmg t11€ 111113 against this judgment of a appeal. Leéln€d counS€1 fOr t1he State argues that the View taken by the Magistrate that the art des were the sealed articles aild the respomient was not respnnsihle for 311y adulteration tonne in the same; as he has purchaser] a ciealer and was eiltitted to ActJ is not ih aeootdanee with law ahd. the judgment shouk} he set aside. On the other hand thoee artides in sealed. eenditjon from beaeht of Section. 19(2) of the aforesaid learned Counsel for the respondent subnnts that the artlCte was the seal d artlele and the anctmama (F‘XP/ 3) of the day would show that a wem‘ant‘y was printed on the article with all the particu' each packet of the biscuits, taken dds View that the 1e adulteration found in the stud articles ahd the acqulttal was Just and appropriate. counsel for the parties at length. and have also perused the reconls of the criminal case. )le of articles is not disputed in this case. Moreover it comes in the evidence of P.W.-l ie. Gangasharan Gupta that in the year IQSG are of the contents of the article on therefore the Magistrate has tightly .oonden‘ ““ as not lesponsihle fur any l have heard learned he was working as a Food Inspector in P.T.O. The purchase of samj Gag XI~HC-78 RW,WW éuq i ,W 3/37. E 200 mW<W> wawm Li WW§WW agmw Jagdalpu‘r and. the antire a1 jmisdicfian. This village Aat On. 2.12.85, he: had gone td‘ purchased the aforesaid bi ‘ EX.P~1. Hf: had paid prica 1:116 bisguits in sum 0f Rs. 18;“ and ‘ under EXP/2. He has admitted in the. Panchnama (EXP/8) regarding the ? he has divided the purchased. sample sealing those articles in the manner ~st part. of the alticle to the Pubhc Form No.7 and the other two seaied/ the Local Health Omcei‘, Jagdalpui‘ the Puhtic Anaiyst was received under e EXP—7. He has admitted vide para 13 that a letter was received KP] 11, according to which, he had the respondent. He had also recorded l under EXP] i2 which bears his own um of the said person. He has farther 4, he had sent infonnation to the Section 13 (2) of the Act, regarding the cross examination, he has admitted lqhal an accused. in this case. He has accused] respondent could not submit article, he had not given any notice to oer Form No.6, He also stated that in *ea of Distlkt -Bas€ar was under his labsada €JSO faHs in the same (Eish'ict. fhé SE10}? of the iiesgpondent mid hm} acuits after giving him notice under the reC€i13t was given to h para 6 that he had pitpared said pui'chasa and thereaftev into thrw parts and aft€r prescriherl, 11a had. smut tit Analyst, BHOpal along with parts; wsro depositsd with undér EXP-6. Tho rapmt of from Mohd. Iqbal under E domiad to son tho biScuits to the statoment of Mohd. Iqba signature and aleo the signai Stated that EX. P- 1 accused] respondent mlder Public Analyst report. In the that he has not made. Mohd. further stated that since the aily imrchase bill of the said Dinesh Brand Company uni under xx.» XI—HC-78 W wW,WW iL59 39 ..o .. 200 .\ WWW WWW mmwm S/ WWEwW a:sr%nsn%w the later stag€ of the a31qui1y pmdacea any bill 0f the said p The contents of the. Pam Faod hlsp‘eator (P.W.-1) has endarsed 011 thg packéts of the: "M.F.G.S., Simco Fmd P 5H}; Wa a so thele coma when packed 350 gin Dat€ {md mouth! Max. R Admittedly the seized a: accuSEd was not thC main-Jae? the. prosecution itSelflw was. a SEction 19 of the Act 331' may not b6 allow€f1 iil pmsam 331‘0vithas that itsha“ be no de p€rtaiuing to thg $ale of Fmy focd t0 aileg€ meraly that th€ substansa 0r quality of tha foc having purchased any mtjcle f sala. Sub-ssctioti {2) ‘pmvides havs committed. ail otténce par or mishranded article of food it also, .ne aeonsed I resoondent has not Lu‘chasa. :hnama (EXP-3} wank}. Shaw that tha written in Panchnama that it was :qaid biscuits iika : mducts — KUMHARI — 490042” and a Lin 111mg th mini glucose’ 116‘ "mght #300 gins} preparatlou number, PL T Extra Rs.4.50,’-". tides were: packed articlas and the Liter nf the said articles. Acconiing to vender. ovides for the defence “‘hich may or tions under this Act. Sub-sec non (1) fence in a prosecution for an offence. adulterated or miebranded. article of vendor was ignorant of the nature, id. sold by him or that the purchaser )r anlaysis was not pie] diced by the that a vendor snail not he deemed to taining to the sale of any adulterated he proves — Wmomwr) XI—HC-78 ww,m,m Wm \ 200 WW(W) 1 WWW ‘é WWW§WW wmm mmmm éamm (a) that he purchaged $116 ahick of fGmL {i} €11 a case where a Hem-leg is prgscribed for ths sa1e thereai; from a duly lioenood manufacmrer, distributor or flaale‘r, \ (ii) €11 any whor caso, from any nlanufachn‘or, y dishihutor or deakn‘, with a written warramty in Tho prescribod form; and (m {hat tho arable of food while in is poS$esoion was proporly storad and that he Sold it in. the same state as / he purchased it. Sub-Section (3) provdes that any person by Whom a warranty as is refetred to in Section 14 is a1lege61 to have been given shall be entitled to aypear at the healing arid give evideece. A11 impediment is there “in Section 14 of the Act. against the maiuifac‘mrers, distributorsand dealers to give warranty. It has been provided. that no {man-u facmrer or distributor of. or dealer i11,] ally aitiole of food shall sell such article to aoy vendor unless he also gives. a warranty- in Wti'ing in the oreecn‘hed form about the ‘ gm. nature ahd quality of such article to the vendor. A proviso has; been added to this Section that a bill, cash memorandum or invoice in respect of the sale of any article of food given by a manufacturer or d istrihutor of, or dealer in, such article XI-HC—78 mw,m QATJ ‘ , W3? 29.?[gi/r 200 WWW WWW matwm :1 WWW WW $WW be deemed to he a Wanmity given by to 11w vendor thereof Shall such manufacturer, distributor or dealer under this Section. A11 explzmafion has fu‘ says; that in this Section, i] Soction 20-A, the exprs§ commission agent. In this mannsr, it is E F0061 inspector) oven after 1: maiiufacmi‘er, who had g obligation ofwarranty on the made. any effort to make the and the Charge. sheet was Court. The accused/respc grocery shay in the Viliage, article had dearly stated to purchased the article from were branded and sufficient descrintion was there under the a sealed packet of those articles and in bent upon the Food Insoector to make to prosecute the manufacturer of the ticles were manufactured as the the contents of the article. and ion of warranty. and circumstances, nial Court has charges framed under {Seetion 7 read rther been added to this Sectioii, which 1 Shh—section (2) of Section 19 and in ,sion “disnihutm” shall include a Lppai‘ent that in the case on hand, the mowing the name and address of the riuted such information under the : sealed packets of the biscuitsdiad not manufacturer an accused in this ease filed in superficial. manner before the ndent was a vendor having a smail who was having possession of such the Food inspector (PW- 1) that he had a particular person and. the articles ohiigation o: warranty on th: this situation, it was incum enquiry in this regard and article, by whom, the a1 manufacturer had printed descnptjon under the ohh‘ggn it is in these facts acquitted. the accused of the mun-(W) P.T.O. K .V XI-HC—78 3am, Wm, W ' ‘ ‘ ‘Wm 200 WWW 9 WWEWW WWW mmwm 9 %3TF—?r11m1%¥r with 16 (1) {A} (1) of the. Act‘ and in. fhf: apinion of this Cami, 31c k illagaljty, inagulmity or infmmity i9; than-a in the judgmmit of tha tm'al court warranting interfaranca 1'11 this amneal Tha app€a1 iiled. by fh€ State. has n0 man't and the same is diSmissai The judgment 0f aeqliitfal recorded by fhe trial Caurt is hamby confirmed. Sdl— SUNIL KUMAR SJIkNiH,A-x' Judge