: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 CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.864 OF 200 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.864 OF 200 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.864 OF 2002 The State of Maharashtra (At the instance of Shri S.P.Gorad, Food Inspector, FDA, Pune. ...Appellant. v. 1. Milind Sampatrao Kokate Vendor 2. Mr.Sampatrao Pandurang Kokate, Proprietor, Both of M/s. Manohar Dugdhalaya, 725/2, Kasba Peth, Pune. ...Respondents. (Org.Accused Nos.1 & 2) Mr.Y.M.Nakhawa, APP for the Applicant/State. Mr.Vijay Peshave , adv. for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: R.V.More,J. R.V.More,J. R.V.More,J. DATE: 26th March, 2009. DATE: 26th March, 2009. DATE: 26th March, 2009. ORAL JUDGMENT: ORAL JUDGMENT: ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. This appeal is filed by the State taking exception to the order of Chief Judicial Magistrate recording the respondents’ acquittal of the offences punishable under Sections 7(i) r/w 2(ia)(a), 2(ia)(m) punishable under Section 16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (In short ’P.F.A. Act’) vide Section 248(1) of the Cr.P.C. 2. The respondent no.1 is the vendor and the respondent no.2 is the proprietor of M/s.Manohar Dugdhalya situated at Kasba Peth, Pune. Complainant :2: food inspector Mr.Gorad alongwith panch witness Avinash Pawar visited said dairy and purchased 750 ml. of buffalo milk stored in an aluminium can from the respondent no.1. The said milk was divided into three equal parts in dry, clean and empty glass bottles and added 20 drops of formalin in each bottle. Sample bottles thereafter were sealed as per the procedure prescribed under the P.F.A. Act and the panchanama of the said facts was drawn on the spot. One sealed part of above sample was sent for analysis on 21st March, 1995 and the remaining two sample bottles were sent to Local Health Authority. Report of the Public Analyst was received on 26.4.1995 stating that the sample does not confirm to the standard of buffalo milk as per the P.F.A. Rules, 1955. Complainant thereafter obtained consent of the Competent Authority to prosecute the respondents and filed the present complaint on 11.3.96. 3. Charge was framed at Exhibit 62 against the respondents. Same was read over and explained to the respondents in vernacular to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Defence of the respondents is that the complainant did not follow legal procedure of sampling. It is contended by the defence that the complaint is filed after 11 months of taking samples and, therefore, alleged sample was not in good condition so as to exercise respondents’ right under Section 13(2) of the P.F.A. Act. Thus, respondents’ :3: right under Section 13(2) is frustrated. Prosecution examined two witnesses, namely, the complainant and the panch witness in order to prove the charge . However, the panch witness has not supported the prosecution case. Learned Magistrate after appreciating the evidence led by the prosecution held that the respondents’ right under Section 13(2) is frustrated as the complaint was filed after the period of 11 and half months and consequently, acquitted of the charges levelled against them. 4. Having gone through the depositions of the prosecution witnesses and the documentary evidence, having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties, I am of the considered view that the appeal is devoid of any merits. 5. Following facts are not disputed: . Sample of buffalo milk was taken by the complainant on 21.3.95 and public analyst report at Exhibit 49 was received on 26.4.1995. The complainant had filed criminal case in the Court of learned Magistrate on 11.3.1996. Respondents thereafter appeared in the above case in pursuant to summons on 3.8.96. Thus, the complaint was filed after the period of 11 and half months. Respondents appeared after the period of one and half year from the date of taking :4: samples. 6. In the State of Maharashtra v. Subhash State of Maharashtra v. Subhash State of Maharashtra v. Subhash Ramkrishna Uddappi, 1979 (I) FAC 212 Ramkrishna Uddappi, 1979 (I) FAC 212 Ramkrishna Uddappi, 1979 (I) FAC 212, this Court held that a sample of milk even after addition of formalin is not fit for analysis six months after the date of taking of the sample. Similar view is taken by this Court in Radhelal Jagannath Bitholia v. State of Maharashtra Radhelal Jagannath Bitholia v. State of Maharashtra Radhelal Jagannath Bitholia v. State of Maharashtra reported in 1982(I) FAC 183 1982(I) FAC 183 1982(I) FAC 183. In that case sample was taken on 22.2.1977 and complaint was filed on 22.9.1977. The learned Single Judge of this Court relied upon Subhash Uddappi Case (Supra) Subhash Uddappi Case (Supra) Subhash Uddappi Case (Supra) and held that sample of milk even after addition of formalin is not fit for analysis after period of six months after the date of taking samples. In the present case since complaint was filed after 11 months from the date of taking samples , the respondents’ right under Section 13(2) of the said Act is frustrated. I find no manifest error in the impugned order. Since the impugned order can not be faulted on the above ground, other points need not be gone into. Appeal is devoid of any merits and the same stands dismissed. (R.V.MORE, J.) (R.V.MORE, J.) (R.V.MORE, J.)