- 1 - IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.228 OF 1997 APPEAL NO.228 OF 1997 APPEAL NO.228 OF 1997 The State of Maharashtra ...Appellant vs. 1.Madhukar B.Dharne 2.Harishchandra V.Kolpate ...Respondents Mr.J.P.Yagnik A.P.P. for State None for the respondents CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: A.S.OKA,J. A.S.OKA,J. A.S.OKA,J. DATE DATE DATE : MARCH 3,2009 : MARCH 3,2009 : MARCH 3,2009 ORAL JUDGMENT: ORAL JUDGMENT: ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. Heard learned A.P.P for the appellant. The respondents have been prosecuted for offence punishable under section 7 (i) r/w section 2(ia)(a), 2(ia)(c), 2 (ia)(m) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act,1955 r/w Rule 23 and r/w section 7 (v) r/w.section 14-A punishable under section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act,1984. The case of the prosecution in brief is that, the complainant along with independent witnesses and other Food Inspector visited the premises of MHADA Canteen, Shivleela Upahar Griha, Bandra. The said Food Inspector demanded and purchased 450 gms Maska butter on payment of cost. He purchased the Maska-butter and the sample thereof was sent to chemical analyst. The Chemical Analyst after observing all formalities under the said Act of 1954 opined that the sample was not in conformity with the standard prescribed under the Prevention of Adulteration Rules,1955. Order of acquittal has been passed on various grounds including the ground that mandatory provision of law under section 11(1) (c)(i) of the said Act of 1954 has not been complied with. - 2 - 2. With the assistance of the learned A.P.P I have perused the impugned Judgment and Order, notes of evidence and other material on record. 3. P.W.2 Shyamsunder Ganpat Kubde, Food Inspector (complainant) stated in his deposition that the butter purchased by him was divided equally into three parts in clean, dry and empty glass bottles. He closed the mouths of the bottles by cork. He tightly sealed to the bottles. In the cross examination he admitted that he kept 450 gms of the butter in the empty, dry and cleaned stainless steel pot which was provided by the office. He admitted that this fact is not narrated either in the panchnama or in the complaint. 4. Perusal of the evidence of P.W.2 shows that he has not stated that he himself cleaned the bottles. He has not disclosed as to who cleaned the bottles. The person who cleaned the bottles has not been examined. 5. In the circumstances, this was a case where compliance with the Rule 14 of the said Rules of 1955 was not proved. In view of the law laid down by this court in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Ram Murat Dube in Criminal Appeal No.98 of 1976 decided on 15th April 1977, the order of conviction could not have been passed by the learned Magistrate. 6. In this view of the matter, the order of acquittal passed by the learned Magistrate is justified and no interference is called for. Appeal is accordingly dismissed. - 3 - JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE