1 crap1572.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1572 OF 2011 The State of Maharashtra, through Food Inspector, Food and Drugs Administration, SRPF Road, Raj Building, Jalna ...Applicant (Original Complainant) VERSUS Mohamad Yousuf Mohamad Habib ...Respondent (Original Accused) ..... Smt. Y.M.Kshirsagar, A.P.P. for the applicant/State Respondent served, absent. ..... CORAM : SHRIHARI P.DAVARE, J. DATED : 5th August, 2011 PER COURT : 1 Heard learned A.P.P. for the applicant. 2 This is an application preferred by the applicant seeking leave to file appeal, challenging the judgment and order 2 crap1572.11 of acquittal, dated 9.11.2010, rendered by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalna, in R.C.C. No. 210 of 2007, thereby acquitting the respondent (original accused) for the offences punishable under Section 7(i) r/w Section (2)(ia)(a)2(ia)(h) and Section 7(v) r/w Rule 50 punishable under Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and Rules, 1955. 3 I have perused the impugned judgment and order, dated 9.11.2010 and R. and P. with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. 4 It appears that the respondent (original accused) faced the trial for the offence of stocking for sale an adulterated food article i.e. Kali Miri (Black papper whole) on 3.8.2006 at 1445 hours in the shop M/s Mahendi Masala shop, situated at Dana Bazar, Jalna in contravention of provisions of Section 7(i) r/w Section 2(ia)(a) Section 2(ia)(m) Section 7(v) r/w Section 14-A and Rule 50 punishable under Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and Rules, 1955. 3 crap1572.11 5 To substantiate the charges levelled against the accused, the prosecution examined as many as three witnesses, as mentioned below :- PW1 Prashant Bhaskarrao Umrani, Food Inspector, PW2 Ashok Shivkaran Hurgat, Local Health Authority, to whom remaining sample was sent by PW1 and who submitted public analyst report along with letter dated 5.10.2006 PW3 Ramesh Bhikchand Satpure, Panch – turned hostile 6 The defence of the accused is that the shop in question does not belong to him and he was standing on the foot path near shop, as the owner of the shop had gone outside for some time and meanwhile, Food Inspector came there and obtained his signature on the bill of purchased Kali Miri (Black papper whole) of Rs.60/-. 7 It is pertinent to note that although there is specific defence of the accused that the M/s Mehendi Masala shop does not belong to him and he is not owner thereof and he was 4 crap1572.11 standing on the foot path, it is also an admitted fact that the Food Inspector has not collected Municipal Number of the said shop and he has not inquired about ownership of the said shop and the said inaction on the part of PW1 Food Inspector Prashant Umrani hampers the case of the prosecution. 8 Moreover, the panchanama Exh. 29 has not been duly proved, since the panch witness Ramesh Satpure has turned hostile. So also, sample of Kali Miri (Black papper whole) appears to be doubtful, so whether he had collected it in polythene bag or plastic barni, since para no.7 of the complaint discloses that Kali Miri (Black papper whole) was collected in plastic barni, but he has no where deposed before the court from where he has brought plastic barni/polythene bag. The Public Analyst report was challenged in respect of the authenticity, but still the prosecution has not examined the Public Analyst, and the said inaction on the part of the prosecution damages the case of prosecution. Accordingly, the oral evidence of PW1 Prashant Umrani has not been supported and corroborated by any of the witnesses, as well as there are number of omissions and contradictions in the 5 crap1572.11 depositions of PW1 Prashant Umrani and PW2 Ashok Hurgat, which cause severe injury to the case of prosecution. 9 Hence, the learned Trial Court observed that on the strength of the allegations of prosecution, there is no cogent, consistent , truthful and reliable evidence adduced by the prosecution and the evidence of the prosecution is insufficient to prove the allegations not only beyond reasonable doubt, but beyond preponderance of probabilities, and hence, concluded that the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt and acquitted the accused and the said reasoning apparently cannot be faulted with. 10 In the circumstances, after scrutinizing and appreciating the evidence on record, the view adopted by the learned Trial Court is a possible view and same does not appear to be perverse, and apparently, there is no flaw in the reasoning given by the learned Trial Court therein, and hence, no interference therein is warranted and present application deserves to be rejected. 6 crap1572.11 11 In the result, present application stands dismissed. Leave to file appeal is refused. R. and P. be sent back to the concerned court. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE), JUDGE. dbm/crap1572.11