1 Cri Appeal No. 209 of 1999 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 209 OF 1999 The State of Maharashtra, Through Dilip Krishna Sawant, Food Inspector, Nanded, Assistant Commissioner F & D Administration, Nanded Appellant V E R S U S 1. M/s Ravi Traders, Nanded, Through Vinodkumar Bhagchand Rathi, Aged 42 years, Occupation Business, Resident of Vazirabad, Nanded, District Nanded. 2. M/s Umred Agro Complex Limited, Nagpur, Through Director Arvind Waman Bakde, Resident of Bajajnagar, Nagpur, District Nagpur. Respondents Mr. T.S. Lodhe, APP for the appellant Smt. S.G. Chincholkar, Advocate, holding for Mr. G.N. Chincholkar, Advocate for respondent No.1 Mr. V.A. Laghate, Advocate for respondent No.2 CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 3rd December, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is filed by the State of Maharashtra against the Judgment and order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nanded, in Regular Criminal Case No. 319 of 1993, acquitting the respondents / accused. The prosecution case, in short, can be narrated as under : 2 Cri Appeal No. 209 of 1999 2. The complainant – Food Inspector, on 9th September, 1992, visited a restaurant by name Banjara Bar and Restaurant, Nanded. He found that the Manager of the restaurant had kept food articles, such as; besan and refined Soyabin Oil for preparing food products to be sold at the restaurant. The complainant took samples of the oil that was found in an open box. It was found to be adulterated. So, initially, the complaint was lodged only against the owner, the proprietor and the manager of the restaurant. During the course of investigation, the complainant learnt from the Manager of the restaurant that the oil was bought from the respondent No. 1 M/s Ravi Traders at Nanded. The complainant then went and obtained some samples of oil from the respondent No.1. Fortunately for the respondent No.1, the oil was found unadulterated. The complainant learnt from the respondent No.1 that the respondent No. 2 had manufactured the oil and he had bought the oil for distribution at Nanded. In view of this disclosure, the complainant made an application to the Court to add the respondents No. 1 and 2 as accused Nos. 4 and 5. By the time, such application was made, the complainant had already recorded his evidence before charge. On the basis of such evidence, the charge was framed against all the appellants including the respondents. However, the respondents No. 2 and 3 were not afforded any opportunity to cross-examine the complainant. Nonetheless, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate dismissed the complaint and acquitted the respondents and other accused. 3. The learned A.P.P. asserted that it is amply proved that the oil manufactured and distributed by the respondents was found adulterated and they failed to explain this adulteration. This submission is devoid of merit. When the samples of oil were taken at the restaurant, the oil was found in an open box. It was not taken from a sealed box. This is an admitted position. It is obvious that the 3 Cri Appeal No. 209 of 1999 Manager of the restaurant or the cook at the restaurant thus had an opportunity to mix the oil with other adulterants, and in view of such possibility, the respondents deserve acquittal. The appeal should therefore fail. The appeal stands dismissed. ( A.V. NIRGUDE, J. ) SRM/criapl/209/99/8/12/10ok